News: PFT: Blindside block foul called against the Saints was proper application of horrendous rule

[Creeper]

There are two issues here, completely separate:

1. Helmet to helmet
2. Blindside block

The former applies to any LEADING with the helmet on any play, including a RB with the ball initiating contact by leading with the helmet. People are pretending like this was a dirty play because of this type of contact which is STANDARD for any linemen on any block, as the GIFs demonstrate. If one is going to argue from this point, that the hit by Tyron Smith was DIRTY period.

As far as the second rule, this was not a BLINDSIDE block, as the note under the rule states. That is in reality what the rule is discussing, not any block that occurs parallel or towards the end-zone of the blocker. That situation for example is found when the receiving team of a punt is blocking the punting team from running to the guy receiving the kick.

What makes that blindside so dangerous is that the person getting hit has no way to protect themselves. He’s completely exposed and has no way to know a hit is about to happen.

Both GIFs I showed are demonstrating how asinine this “helmet to helmet” rule is in regards to blocking. This isn’t leading with the helmet as it’s generally understood on the field, blockers do this ALL THE TIME.

To cry about what this TE did, while pretending it was dirty, is bogus.

Again, read the text of the rule:

ARTICLE 7. BLINDSIDE BLOCK
It is a foul if a player initiates a block when his path is toward or parallel to his own end line and makes forcible contact to his opponent with his helmet, forearm, or shoulder.

There are TWO conditions to apply to make it a blindside block. The first is, was the blocker moving parallel to or in the direction of his goal line? The answer in this case is yes. That is indisputable.

The 2nd condition is, did the blocker make forcible contact with his opponent with his helmet, forearm or shoulder? The answer is yes, he made contact with the crown of his helmet to the side of Kearse's helmet. That is also indisputable since it is shown clearly in the video.

Now, there is a note to this rule that states:

Note: It is not a foul for a blindside block if the forcible contact occurs in “close-line play” prior to the ball leaving that area. The ball is not considered to have left that area if the player who takes the snap, either from a shotgun position or from under center, retreats in the pocket immediately or with a slight delay, and hands the ball to another player, or runs with the ball himself. This exception does not apply to any action other than a designed play. Any forcible contact in “close-line play” is still subject to the restrictions for crackback and peel back blocks.

This note applies to blocking that takes place on or near the LOS. But the block in question occurred well behind the line making the note inapplicable.

I am not arguing the call was a good call because I think the rule is a stupid rule. But I will argue that if there rule exists the refs are right to call it. This is a relatively new rule put in to reduce concussions, a big issue for the NFL right now. The rules committee can always change the rule or make it more flexible, but the rule as written was applied correctly in this case.

This rule may be in the same category as the rule that cost the Cowboys a blocked punt, but a the refs applied the rule correctly at that time.

 

[Captain-Crash]

As predicted, our fans are all “yesssiir, that was the proper call!!!”

We’d be on page 33 of a whinefest had that same play been called against the Cowboys.

See the blocked punt and fumble recovery in the Broncos game if you want proof.

 

[khiladi]

I believe close-line play refers to the blocking that takes place around the line of scrimmage. In this case Kearse was 5 yards into the backfield and in space.

1. The TE is blocking for the QB in the pocket. This is just asinine, because even traditional, drop-back passes can be 7 steps, meaning between 5 and 7 yards. So now we are saying blockers can’t protect their QB in this manner, unless they measure 5 yards from the line?

I provided a GIF in the Titans-Cowboys game that is way behind five yards and the block takes place. Again, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND IS STANDARD.

2. Again, BY DEFINITION, blindside refers to out of view of the person. They use that term in the Notes. What this predicates is that the hit has to be a “blindside” hit, otherwise they are simply redefining blindside to mean something it clearly is not.

Again, it’s pointless to argue, until one actually determines how they are using the term blindside here. If they are redefining it to mean what it clearly does not, than there is an argument there. But then again, common sense indicates certain fundamental assumptions in the usage of words and their meanings, unless the language tells us specifically they are applying a new meaning to well-established terminology.

As I said, the rule obviously pertains to situations such as in punting situations, where a blocker comes parallel or from behind to the runner going down-field and initiates contact in that manner. The reality is, this type of blocking happens IN THE POCKET IN EVERY GAME on pretty much EVERY snap. To claim they are correctly applying a rule is just absurd, considering the actual ground realities on the football field on pretty much every play.

And like you pointed out, this is what the Notes imply, which is a good clarification on your point, that blindside block doesn’t apply to the basically normal play in the pocket.

 

[khiladi]

Again, read the text of the rule:

ARTICLE 7. BLINDSIDE BLOCK
It is a foul if a player initiates a block when his path is toward or parallel to his own end line and makes forcible contact to his opponent with his helmet, forearm, or shoulder.

There are TWO conditions to apply to make it a blindside block. The first is, was the blocker moving parallel to or in the direction of his goal line? The answer in this case is yes. That is indisputable.

The 2nd condition is, did the blocker make forcible contact with his opponent with his helmet, forearm or shoulder? The answer is yes, he made contact with the crown of his helmet to the side of Kearse's helmet. That is also indisputable since it is shown clearly in the video.

Now, there is a note to this rule that states:

Note: It is not a foul for a blindside block if the forcible contact occurs in “close-line play” prior to the ball leaving that area. The ball is not considered to have left that area if the player who takes the snap, either from a shotgun position or from under center, retreats in the pocket immediately or with a slight delay, and hands the ball to another player, or runs with the ball himself. This exception does not apply to any action other than a designed play. Any forcible contact in “close-line play” is still subject to the restrictions for crackback and peel back blocks.

This note applies to blocking that takes place on or near the LOS. But the block in question occurred well behind the line making the note inapplicable.

I am not arguing the call was a good call because I think the rule is a stupid rule. But I will argue that if there rule exists the refs are right to call it. This is a relatively new rule put in to reduce concussions, a big issue for the NFL right now. The rules committee can always change the rule or make it more flexible, but the rule as written was applied correctly in this case.

This rule may be in the same category as the rule that cost the Cowboys a blocked punt, but a the refs applied the rule correctly at that time.

I actually found an article on this rule in particular that explains it better than any of us could. The following video is used as a reference point in the respective link thar directly addresses the situation we are discussing:

https://www.footballzebras.com/2020/12/dissecting-blindside-blocks-when-is-it-legal-or-illegal/



The article states the following about this incident:

In this clip from week 14 of 2020 in the Patriots vs. Chiefs game, the Chiefs offensive lineman uses his body to shield the quarterback from a hit from behind but does not make forcible contact to the defender. His actions are more of a screening movement and should be considered legal in that case. Offensive lineman Austin Reiter was flagged for this block in that game but the play itself is used as a teaching point for officials to show that it is not considered illegal and should not be flagged.

Basically, as you and @Runwildboys began discussing it all revolves around the term “FORCIBLE”. This type of hit is not described as “forcible” and though it was flagged in the games it is used as a teaching point of an INCORRECTLY applied rule, .

And to further elaborate this, as this article also points out, the very change in the rule was a result of the following type of hit:

In the clip from the 2018 Packers vs. Dolphins game in week 10, Packers receiver Equanimeous St. Brown (No. 19) initiates an illegal blindside block on cornerback Bobby McCain (No. 28) as receiver Devante Adams turns up field after catching a pass near the sideline. Notice that St. Brown is moving directly perpendicularly and back toward his own goal line when he throws a crushing block that ends up injuring McCain and removing him from the game.

This was not a foul at the time, since there was not contact to the head or neck area, but it was one of the plays that was the impetus for the rule change in 2019.

The following video is provided in the link to show what this rule was meant to address:



This is not a “blindside” block, because the defender is getting hit in the chest, but he clearly isn’t paying attention to the blocker, who levels him. This is what the rule was meant to address, where he wasn’t hit in the head or above the neck, but he was still flattened via the chest.

 

[Creeper]

I actually found an article on this rule in particular that explains it better than any of us could. The following video is used as a reference point in the respective link thar directly addresses the situation we are discussing:

https://www.footballzebras.com/2020/12/dissecting-blindside-blocks-when-is-it-legal-or-illegal/



The article states the following about this incident:



Basically, as you and @Runwildboys began discussing it all revolves around the term “FORCIBLE”. This type of hit is not described as “forcible” and though it was flagged in the games it is used as a teaching point of an INCORRECTLY applied rule, .

And to further elaborate this, as this article also points out, the very change in the rule was a result of the following type of hit:



The following video is provided in the link to show what this rule was meant to address:



This is not a “blindside” block, because the defender is getting hit in the chest, but he clearly isn’t paying attention to the blocker, who levels him. This is what the rule was meant to address, where he wasn’t hit in the head or above the neck, but he was still flattened via the chest.

Remember, the blind side block rule requires two things. First is the blocker must be moving towards his own goal line (or parallel to it). Second, he must use his head, shoulder or forearm to deliver a forcible blow to his opponent.

In the first example, the blocker met condition 1 but I would argue not condition 2. In the second example the blocker met both conditions. He does not have to hit his opponent in the head, he just has to use his own helmet, shoulder of forearm when he hits his opponent.

I think what has people confused if the location of the block, behind the line of scrimmage. Most people think of your second example as the typical blindside block, but the rule allows this call anywhere on the field away from the LOS.

 

[MarcusRock]

I think those people are being consistent in the application of the rules as they are written.

No, bro. They ignored a huge marker in the application of the rule because it was convenient to. Here, people are now ref crusaders .... because it's convenient to, i.e., the Cowboys benefit.

The Waller play was about which football move applied. Every single poster ignored my point that you can't look for a football move until AFTER control and 2 feet. With Waller already headed upfield AFTER 2 feet touch down you can't then apply the headed upfield football move because he's already headed that way. No one wanted to have that discussion. Not a single one. Why? Again, convenient. Same here.

 

[MarcusRock]

NFL admits refs botched controversial blindside block call in New Orleans Saints, Dallas Cowboys game

https://sportsnaut.com/nfl-blindside-block-new-orleans-saints-cowboys/

@Creeper?


Check out the stats this guy rattles off about the Saints and penalties the past few years. Conspiracy????? Lol.

 

[Creeper]

NFL admits refs botched controversial blindside block call in New Orleans Saints, Dallas Cowboys game

https://sportsnaut.com/nfl-blindside-block-new-orleans-saints-cowboys/

@Creeper?


Check out the stats this guy rattles off about the Saints and penalties the past few years. Conspiracy????? Lol.

Yes, the NFL admitted "privately" to the Saints who are now the only ones claiming the NFL admitted this mistake. However, I would have to see the NFL's explanation for why the call was a mistake, because according to the rules the block was illegal. Perhaps they don't want the rule applied in that situation which is understandable, and that seems to be their best explanation, and I would agree with it, but that is different than saying the penalty is not within the rules given the text of the rule itself. The rule's only exclusion is blocking near the line of scrimmage. The block that was called was 5 yards behind the LOS.

Perhaps the rules committee can revise the test to note that blocks behind the line of scrimmage are not subject to the blindside block rule.

To me, the helmet to helmet contact is why the refs threw the flag. But that is what the rules says is illegal. When the NFL explains why the penalty call was inconsistent with the text of the rule book I will provide further comment.

 

[Creeper]

No, bro. They ignored a huge marker in the application of the rule because it was convenient to. Here, people are now ref crusaders .... because it's convenient to, i.e., the Cowboys benefit.

What is the huge marker in the application of the blindside block rule we are ignoring? The rule is fairly simple. The blocker must be moving parallel to or in the direction of his goal line.
The player must make forcible contact with the opponent using his head, shoulder or forearm.

I get your Waller fumble argument. You are suggesting he never made a football move which is a requirement for a completed catch. But what is the condition of a blindside block that was not met in the Saints game?

Was the blocker not moving in the direction of his goal line?
Did he not use his helmet in making the block?
Was he on or near the line of scrimmage?

 

[Creeper]

While some Cowboys fans are making a big deal about how bad the blindside block call against the Saints was, remember it occurred in the 3rd quarter with plenty of time to overcome the ref's "mistake". But the PI call against Anthony Brown in overtime ended the game and yet that call is getting way less attention. Why is that?

 

[Runwildboys]

Saints got royally screwed .

They got it back when they intercepted Dak's pass after he got hit in the face, so I don't feel bad about it.

 

[Runwildboys]

Again, read the text of the rule:

ARTICLE 7. BLINDSIDE BLOCK
It is a foul if a player initiates a block when his path is toward or parallel to his own end line and makes forcible contact to his opponent with his helmet, forearm, or shoulder.

There are TWO conditions to apply to make it a blindside block. The first is, was the blocker moving parallel to or in the direction of his goal line? The answer in this case is yes. That is indisputable.

The 2nd condition is, did the blocker make forcible contact with his opponent with his helmet, forearm or shoulder? The answer is yes, he made contact with the crown of his helmet to the side of Kearse's helmet. That is also indisputable since it is shown clearly in the video.

Now, there is a note to this rule that states:

Note: It is not a foul for a blindside block if the forcible contact occurs in “close-line play” prior to the ball leaving that area. The ball is not considered to have left that area if the player who takes the snap, either from a shotgun position or from under center, retreats in the pocket immediately or with a slight delay, and hands the ball to another player, or runs with the ball himself. This exception does not apply to any action other than a designed play. Any forcible contact in “close-line play” is still subject to the restrictions for crackback and peel back blocks.

This note applies to blocking that takes place on or near the LOS. But the block in question occurred well behind the line making the note inapplicable.

I am not arguing the call was a good call because I think the rule is a stupid rule. But I will argue that if there rule exists the refs are right to call it. This is a relatively new rule put in to reduce concussions, a big issue for the NFL right now. The rules committee can always change the rule or make it more flexible, but the rule as written was applied correctly in this case.

This rule may be in the same category as the rule that cost the Cowboys a blocked punt, but a the refs applied the rule correctly at that time.

The one issue I have with it is; Was that helmet to helmet really something you'd call "forcible"? I wouldn't. Kearse leaned in as well, helping initiate the contact, but either way, Kearse's head only bounced back to just the other side of straight up. To me, "forcible" is more than that.

 

[speedkilz88]

The one issue I have with it is; Was that helmet to helmet really something you'd call "forcible"? I wouldn't. Kearse leaned in as well, helping initiate the contact, but either way, Kearse's head only bounced back to just the other side of straight up. To me, "forcible" is more than that.

Your definition of forcible isn't their definition. They differentiate between solid contact and just getting in the way.

 

[Creeper]

The one issue I have with it is; Was that helmet to helmet really something you'd call "forcible"? I wouldn't. Kearse leaned in as well, helping initiate the contact, but either way, Kearse's head only bounced back to just the other side of straight up. To me, "forcible" is more than that.

That is a reasonable argument. What constitutes "forcible" is the question.

 

[JoeKing]

 

[Runwildboys]

No, bro. They ignored a huge marker in the application of the rule because it was convenient to. Here, people are now ref crusaders .... because it's convenient to, i.e., the Cowboys benefit.

The Waller play was about which football move applied. Every single poster ignored my point that you can't look for a football move until AFTER control and 2 feet. With Waller already headed upfield AFTER 2 feet touch down you can't then apply the headed upfield football move because he's already headed that way. No one wanted to have that discussion. Not a single one. Why? Again, convenient. Same here.

Actually, I felt (and still do) that Waller made enough of a turn upfield after getting both feet down. I just felt it was a matter of differing opinions that wasn't going to change.

 

[Creeper]

More fodder for the debate this is the NFL defending a blindside block call from another game in 2019.

 

[Runwildboys]

Your definition of forcible isn't their definition. They differentiate between solid contact and just getting in the way.

The head getting in the way? I'm not sure what that means. His head pretty much hit first because he leaned his body in to push Kearse. It didn't look to me like he was intentionally leading with his head. Is that the difference you mean?

 

[MarcusRock]

I was talking specifically about the Waller play. No one addressed that a football move can't happen until after 2 feet are down per the rules.

This one is technically correct by letter of the law interpretation but we all believe we've seen it either be a no-call before or think it's a sucky rule. Honestly, for Cowboys fans to be saying this on a rule we didn't get the short end of, that's saying something. There's still the matter of whether the NFL themselves will say it was a mistake in application since they do admit errors after the fact. We have reports of them privately telling the Saints it was wrong so we'll see.

 

[plymkr]

I agree that it's not a bad rule. The league just needs to work on when and how it should be enforced.

It's not a bad rule. I just wish the refs would call it with the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. The Saints game when it was was called in our favor shouldn't have been called. No one was going to get hurt and it was a picky call. How it was written the call was correct, why the rule was written the penalty shouldn't have been called.