Chop or not a chop... there is no question

Longestdays

Flats Noob
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
742
You have to intentionally engage high and low. This was not intentional as it is obvious who each person is intending to engage. This might have been hard to see live....

 
I agree, but at actual game speed I could see why the refs threw a flag.
 
That LB was coming right at the mesh and must be cut off. 62 must cut off 25. This is not a chop block.

55 was just too much of a beast and pushed his guy backwards over top of the back side cut of 25.

I win the internet....
 
Is intentionality a part of the rule? What's the literal rule?

It was clearly a high-low block, probably not intentional. But the refs could be forgiven for thinking it was intentional. (Again, if intentionality matters.)
 
Yes. It is. A player went low while another blocked high. He whiffed his assignment.

wrong...

62 impeded 25 from killing the mesh and did his job.

Also if the NT is holding the Center, who is trying to not to engage and is cut by the OG... that is not a chop block.
 
Is intentionality a part of the rule? What's the literal rule?
Late hits on the sidelines generally aren't intentional either. Nor are false starts. Perhaps we could start explaining to the refs when we intentionally want to be penalized.
 
Going to miss Shamire. You could see the fear in #54
 
I am not but you don't know the rules.
Tell me why it isn't a chop. The LB had no effect on the direction of the left tackle. He dove straight ahead into the knees of a player being blocked high, you arrogant know it all prick. It is an obvious chop. Give me your ööööing reason why it isn't.
 
And diving straight into knees is not "incidental" contact. This is why the rule is there. Otherwise, we'd claim all chops were merely incidental.
 
Here's the actual rule:

A chop block is a high-low or low-high combination block by any two players against an opponent (not the ball carrier) anywhere on the field, with or without a delay between blocks; the “low” component is at the opponent’s thigh or below. (A.R. 9-1-10-I-IV). It is not a foul if the blockers’ opponent initiates the contact. (A.R. 9-1-10-V)

There's no intention at all in the rule. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the high blocker is disengaging:

As the flow of the play moves to the left, right tackle A77 is disengaging from his block above the thigh with B50 when A27 blocks B50 at his knee. RULING: Chop block, 15 yards. Previous-spot enforcement if the foul occurs behind the neutral zone.

This was an easy, correct call.
 
So any incidental contact below the waist is a chop block if someone else is blocking... not true.

"It is not a foul if the blockers’ opponent initiates the contact."
 
So any incidental contact below the waist is a chop block if someone else is blocking... not true.
dule_dc599b7e-715c-4e3a-9637-ce01e241255f_600x.jpg
 
Not sure how you could be upset that this was called a chop block. It wasn't intentional, but it is a chop block.
 
Back
Top