Kenny Bell's Hellacious Block & The Sad State Of Football

[Hoofbite]

[youtube]nqzycdM4lr8[/youtube]

Unreal.

I love the reaction from the announcers and he's got a legit question, what is he supposed to do?

 

[BigWillie]

I guess the NFL needs to learn from the NBA in how to set screens rather than make a block.

I could get the flag if Kenny had led with his helmet. I could even see it if he 'launched' himself. But even when you slow the thing down, you can see Kenny's body is sideways when he throws that block. And his feet stay on the ground when he throws the block as well, so he is not 'launching' either.

Besides an NBA screen, I guess Kenny could have taken his helmet off and distracted him with his ridiculous afro.

 

[mldardy]

Looks like the block Golden Tate put on Sean Lee. Which I don't believe Tate was penalized for. I hated seeing that happen to Lee but it was a clean hit.

 

[joseephuss]

I love the reaction from the announcers and he's got a legit question, what is he supposed to do?

That is a poor question. He could have done a few things differently to make that block both within the rules and still be effective. I am not saying that some of these rules aren't going beyond what is needed, but this player did have some options.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

They called that illegal!?!?!

Absolutely sickening.

 

[InmanRoshi]

There is absolutely nothing in football more overrated than the WR laying out an unsuspecting defender on a blindside hit. There's nothing "hard nosed" about it. Any midget slot diva WR can do it. For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone creams their jeans on the football equivalent of a sucker punch.

 

[YosemiteSam]

They should suspend players who launch themselves into blindside blocks. The guys isn't a ball carrier so there is no reason to hit him like that when he isn't looking.

As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than a bush league sucker punch with full intent to injure. Suspend him.

 

[danielofthesaints]

Looks like the block Golden Tate put on Sean Lee. Which I don't believe Tate was penalized for. I hated seeing that happen to Lee but it was a clean hit.

This hit does not look anything like the hit Tate put on Lee. There's a difference between hitting the shoulder of the opponent with your shoulder/arm (this case) and hitting the neck region of your opponent with your helmet (Tate-Lee case).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Looks like the block Golden Tate put on Sean Lee. Which I don't believe Tate was penalized for. I hated seeing that happen to Lee but it was a clean hit.

Looks nothing like the Tate block. Tate lead with the crown of his head and he launched himself. Nothing at all alike IMO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

They called that illegal!?!?!

Absolutely sickening.

I agree. That was a great football play. The only thing that I could imagine they flagged that for was defenseless, which is very subjective. I just think that was a bad call and a great block. JMO

 

[YosemiteSam]

I agree. That was a great football play. The only thing that I could imagine they flagged that for was defenseless, which is very subjective. I just think that was a bad call and a great block. JMO

There is no point in launching yourself at a defensiveness (ie, does not see you coming which is clearly not subjective) player if he isn't carrying the ball. The hole reason I note carrying the ball, is because you are damn aware that you *ARE* the primary target of everyone on the opposing team.

It is completely and utterly classless. He could have easily blocked him without pulling that bush league hit.

 

[DFWJC]

There is absolutely nothing in football more overrated than the WR laying out an unsuspecting defender on a blindside hit. There's nothing "hard nosed" about it. Any midget slot diva WR can do it. For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone creams their jeans on the football equivalent of a sucker punch.

I agree with IR here.

He didn't see him coming, so how can it be deemed a hard-nosed play?

As for thre Tate block. I think this one was more legal than Tate's. jmo

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is no point in launching yourself at a defensiveness (ie, does not see you coming which is clearly not subjective) player if he isn't carrying the ball. The hole reason I note carrying the ball, is because you are damn aware that you *ARE* the primary target of everyone on the opposing team.

It is completely and utterly classless. He could have easily blocked him without pulling that bush league hit.

Well, had he launched himself, I might agree with you but in no way does that apply here. Completely legal technique.

Football is not a none contact sport and frankly, I don't give spit for what anybody thinks about intensity or how much you should or should not use. If you don't like aggression, you should probably be watching another sport.

My experience with this sport is that if you go half speed or try to execute any given play without bringing maximum effort and force, you will eventually pay for it with an injury. The easiest way to get hurt is to half speed halfway do anything on the field. It's funny, I don't hear anybody crying over guys running over blockers trying to break up a wedge or trying to get to the QB.

I can't fault a player who is playing within the confines of the rules and as I said, this looks to me like a legal block. What would we say, I wonder, if the guy had not made the block, the ball carrier had been tackled and injured? Everybody would be all over him for not making enough effort and place blame on him for that same lack of effort.

No, I'm sorry, I don't have it in my heart to say one negative thing about that block.

Great block and one heck of a football play IMO.

 

[joseephuss]

Well, had he launched himself, I might agree with you but in no way does that apply here. Completely legal technique.

Football is not a none contact sport and frankly, I don't give spit for what anybody thinks about intensity or how much you should or should not use. If you don't like aggression, you should probably be watching another sport.

My experience with this sport is that if you go half speed or try to execute any given play without bringing maximum effort and force, you will eventually pay for it with an injury. The easiest way to get hurt is to half speed halfway do anything on the field. It's funny, I don't hear anybody crying over guys running over blockers trying to break up a wedge or trying to get to the QB.

I can't fault a player who is playing within the confines of the rules and as I said, this looks to me like a legal block. What would we say, I wonder, if the guy had not made the block, the ball carrier had been tackled and injured? Everybody would be all over him for not making enough effort and place blame on him for that same lack of effort.

No, I'm sorry, I don't have it in my heart to say one negative thing about that block.

Great block and one heck of a football play IMO.

That is silly. No one said he shouldn't have blocked the guy. No one said he should go half speed. He could have blocked the guy while using maximum effort in a different manner.

I would say launching is subjective. I haven't seen any clear definition of what launching is considered to be. Is it leaving both feet? Is it leaving one foot?

I have definitely seen worse hits in similar situations and I have also seen this type of play blocked effectively without a big hit. The game is different now and has been for several years. For good or bad, it has changed. Players need to know it and more importantly they should know it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That is silly. No one said he shouldn't have blocked the guy. No one said he should go half speed. He could have blocked the guy while using maximum effort in a different manner.

I would say launching is subjective. I haven't seen any clear definition of what launching is considered to be. Is it leaving both feet? Is it leaving one foot?

I have definitely seen worse hits in similar situations and I have also seen this type of play blocked effectively without a big hit. The game is different now and has been for several years. For good or bad, it has changed. Players need to know it and more importantly they should know it.

What's silly is calling out this kid for a legal block. That's what's silly here.

You have not seen a clear definition of launching? So then, are you saying that he is guilty of launching, even though you yourself are saying that you don't know the definition of it? How does that make any sense Josee?

For what it is worth, here is what I believe the NFL considers "Launching".

Anyone who leaves both feet before contact to spring forward and upward into an opponent and delivers a blow to the helmet with any part of his helmet.

Now, I realize that this is College ball but clearly, none of what is outlined above happened on the play in question. This player clearly did not leave both feet. Clearly did not target the head of the player to be blocked, nor did he use his own head gear in an attempt to deliver a blow. In fact, this player effectively used his shoulder to deliver the blow. As I look at that play, I come to the exact opposite conclusions. By illustrating all the proper techniques and avoiding any of the ones considered illegal, this player, in fact, showed that not only is he aware of the fact the game has changed and the rules are different but he actually understands them and has implemented a good clean block within the confines of the rules.

Again, this is assuming the NCAA rule on launching is the same as the NFL's but I don't imagine it's much diffferent.

That's a good clean block.

 

[joseephuss]

I didn't say he was guilty of launching. I said he could have blocked the guy differently and effectively while still giving 100% effort.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I didn't say he was guilty of launching. I said he could have blocked the guy differently and effectively while still giving 100% effort.

You said it was subjective and that you were not clear on what the rule for Launching is. You said that players needed to understand the rules have changed and actually understand the rules.

I am simply saying that he did nothing wrong and it is, IMO, ridiculous to chastise the player for making a block within the confines of the rules.

I liken this to a guy who goes out and wins the Olympic Gold in the 100 but is ridiculed because he did not break the world record while winning the Gold.

The play was clean and I see no reason to jump all over the guy for simply applying a legal block.

 

[joseephuss]

You said it was subjective and that you were not clear on what the rule for Launching is. You said that players needed to understand the rules have changed and actually understand the rules.

I am simply saying that he did nothing wrong and it is, IMO, ridiculous to chastise the player for making a block within the confines of the rules.

I liken this to a guy who goes out and wins the Olympic Gold in the 100 but is ridiculed because he did not break the world record while winning the Gold.

The play was clean and I see no reason to jump all over the guy for simply applying a legal block.

I was talking more in generalities than specifics. Players need to realize that big hits are being highly scrutinized right now. The refs are going to err on the conservative side as they did in this case and threw the flag. He could have made the block without the big hit. Legal or not. That is being aware of what the game has become. I don't think that is chastising the player. Whether it is him or some veteran in the NFL.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I was talking more in generalities than specifics. Players need to realize that big hits are being highly scrutinized right now. The refs are going to err on the conservative side as they did in this case and threw the flag. He could have made the block without the big hit. Legal or not. That is being aware of what the game has become. I don't think that is chastising the player. Whether it is him or some veteran in the NFL.

There is a difference between being conservative and making a bad call. For example, if the player had made contact with his head gear in the neck region and was called for it, I would say that is an example of a conservative call. That didn't happen here. The call the official made was clearly wrong and wrong is wrong. You don't want players to make that kind of play, then you change the rules and you risk making the game too sanitized for a good portion of your fan base. However, you don't make the wrong call and justify it by saying I was making a conservative call.

A bad call is a bad call. That was a bad call.