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

[boysbeyond4ever]

The rule is poorly conceived but if you can't lead with your helmet to tackle or defense a pass you shouldn't be able to use it to deliver a block.

 

[khiladi]

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.

The point is the rule was not written for this type of play, it was written for the Green Bay incident. This is the ACTUAL play that initiated the rule change, meaning this is actually what is considered FORCIBLE. The WR leveled the DB in the chest and it wasn’t illegal at that point, so it wasn’t called. But it clearly was forcible.

If the reasoning of the rule is taken into account, the Saints players was doing what is common all the time in blocking, as the GIFs illustrate, meaning it wasn’t forcible.

 

[Runwildboys]

The rule is poorly conceived but if you can't lead with your helmet to tackle or defense a pass you shouldn't be able to use it to deliver a block.

I think it was incidental. Think about how much bigger the helmet makes your head area. If you lean in to push with any leverage, your head goes forward. That happens all the time and doesn't get called.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Terrible rule. Terrible call.

The only thing worth calling there was helmet to helmet, if anything.

 

[khiladi]

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

Notice the date of this game…

It’s in August of 2019 meaning pre-season…. The game of NE and Chiefs was in December if 2019, meaning right before the playoffs. Both of them were called.

Per the article I stated, the Chiefs-NE game is used as the example by the NFL of the INCORRECT applications of the rule. So if this claim by the article id true, and there is no reason to assume it isn’t, this ALSO was an example of the INCORRECT application of the rule.

 

[Creeper]

The point is the rule was not written for this type of play, it was written for the Green Bay incident. This is the ACTUAL play that initiated the rule change, meaning this is actually what is considered FORCIBLE. The WR leveled the DB in the chest and it wasn’t illegal at that point, so it wasn’t called. But it clearly was forcible.

If the reasoning of the rule is taken into account, the Saints players was doing what is common all the time in blocking, as the GIFs illustrate, meaning it wasn’t forcible.

I have never argued the rule as written is a good rule. In fact I have stated several times it is a stupid rule - as written. My argument has been that when the refs threw the flag in the Saints game it was not an incorrect call by the text of the rule. If the league thinks the rule is misapplied on plays like the block on Kearse them change the rule to exclude those blocks. You can't have rules that say one thing but then expect the refs to not enforce those rules based on nothing other than "it might look bad if we call it there". I think clearly written rules, and refs calling the games as the rules are written, will lead to better officiating. Take the judgement calls out of the officials hands and things will improve, even slightly.

The catch rule is a great example. Make it simple. If two feet hit the ground and there is possession it is a catch. This is how they call it when a player catches a pass and goes out of bounds or in the end zone so why is it different on the field of play? Make it simple. Does he have possession and control of the ball? Does he get two feet down on the ground? If yes to both questions then it is a catch.

 

[blueblood70]

i dont think the refs know anything at this point and to me look at the INT for KC and that block called blindside how is it blindside when the blocker was already in front/in the path of the pursuer who ran right into the block, it wasn't blind at all no helmet or a high block used..it was just an ordinary and great block..

ref suck we all know this..

 

[boysbeyond4ever]

I think it was incidental. Think about how much bigger the helmet makes your head area. If you lean in to push with any leverage, your head goes forward. That happens all the time and doesn't get called.

Another example of incosistency, a more well-intentioned one yes, but still a real inconsistency.

There really is a lot for the Rules Committee to examine and re-examine..