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

It’s a weird play he is pushed into the NT who is flowing toward him. NT looks like he intentionally goes for the diving blocker to get a chop call. Would not surprise me.

You can get upset this is called a chop because this type of contact happens a lot in games. Guys are pushed over prone players all the time and it’s not necessarily a chop block.

It’s the fact that this happened very quickly that gives it the appearance of a chop block. I can understand it being called but it’s not the type of block/contact the rule is intended to address.
 
Nope, still not a chop block : ) ... blocking is intentional... although sometimes you become an obstacle. Cooper is pancaking 8. The only reason 8 gets hit by 62 is because he is being pushed by Cooper and he is trying to avoid Cooper.

I am not upset... I just want to win the internet : ) Of course I can be wrong... but I highly doubt this is the case. Blocks are intentional by definition. Incidental contact is not blocking although it does impede progress from time to time.

It is my duty to inform the public (this is sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired)... I also saw it stated many times that is was a chop block and............... it was not a chop block.
 
GTCrew4b said:
It’s a weird play he is pushed into the NT who is flowing toward him. NT looks like he intentionally goes for the diving blocker to get a chop call. Would not surprise me.

You can get upset this is called a chop because this type of contact happens a lot in games. Guys are pushed over prone players all the time and it’s not necessarily a chop block.

It’s the fact that this happened very quickly that gives it the appearance of a chop block. I can understand it being called but it’s not the type of block/contact the rule is intended to address.
Click to expand...
Pushed? The LB barely touched him and didn't have any effect on the LT's direction.
 
Longestdays said:
Nope, still not a chop block : ) ... blocking is intentional... although sometimes you become an obstacle. Cooper is pancaking 8. The only reason 8 gets hit by 62 is because he is being pushed by Cooper and he is trying to avoid Cooper.

I am not upset... I just want to win the internet : ) Of course I can be wrong... but I highly doubt this is the case. Blocks are intentional by definition. Incidental contact is not blocking although it does impede progress from time to time.

It is my duty to inform the public (this is sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired)... I also saw it stated many times that is was a chop block and............... it was not a chop block.
Click to expand...
Intent isn't in the rulebook for chop blocks
 
That was a chop block. The guard was intending to cut in front of the linebacker. But he ended up engaging a man at the knees who was already engaged high by our center. It was the right call.
 
Lol this is pretty much the textbook display of what a chop block looks like. OP is retarded.
 
62 did not engage. 62 did not initiate the contact. 62 did not block 8. 8 was pushed into 62. 8 tripped over 62. You want to know how I know this... I have eyes. 8 is pushed into 62. 62 did not dive at 8 knees. Go look for yourselves.
 
77GTFan said:
That was a chop block. The guard was intending to cut in front of the linebacker. But he ended up engaging a man at the knees who was already engaged high by our center. It was the right call.
Click to expand...
Yep. The rule is there to protect the defensive player. Our player dove straight ahead low and right. Directly into a DL's knees. Like it or not, it was called. Most will say it is the correct call. I don't see any reason not to call it. Nothing about it looks to be caused by a defensive player. If the DL doesn't have awareness of the situation there, that is a real good chance at injury. The rule is there to protect against these plays.
 
Upon further review, that was still a chop block and the OP is still retarded.
 
Longestdays said:
62 did not engage. 62 did not initiate the contact. 62 did not block 8. 8 was pushed into 62. 8 tripped over 62. You want to know how I know this... I have eyes. 8 is pushed into 62. 62 did not dive at 8 knees. Go look for yourselves.
Click to expand...
You are a moron. We dove right at the knees of the player Kenny Cooper was blocking. It happened. Intention has nothing to do with it. The LB had nothing to do with it. 62 played undisciplined football and got called on it. Period. Now put on your grown up pants and stop crybabying already about it. There were questionable calls during the game, but this one isn't close. I'd bet CPJ doesn't send tape of it to the ACC.
 
You sir, have started the name calling, And we know what name calling means... it means you are wrong.

Sticks and stones and all that stuff... : )

62 did what he was suppose to and cut 25 to protect the mesh... he did not cut 8. 8 was pushed into 62.
 
Looks like a chop block to me. It ain't 'incidental contact' when the defender flies through the air like that.
 
Ok I am wrong... 62 was aiming for 8 and had no intention of blocking 25. Do you guys not see who 62 was aiming for... 25 just stopped and pushed. 62 prevented 25 from blowing up the play.

Go here and listen to CPJ at the 7:29 minute mark:
https://247sports.com/threads/virginia-tech-postgame-press-conference.13608/

and I'll call in tomorrow... if I am wrong I am wrong... but at this point I don't think I am...
 
Longestdays said:
Ok I am wrong... 62 was aiming for 8 and had no intention of blocking 25. Do you guys not see who 62 was aiming for... 25 just stopped and pushed. 62 prevented 25 from blowing up the play.

Go here and listen to CPJ at the 7:29 minute mark:
https://247sports.com/threads/virginia-tech-postgame-press-conference.13608/

and I'll call in tomorrow... if I am wrong I am wrong... but at this point I don't think I am...
Click to expand...

Don't know if it is the same CPJ comments I heard or not, but when I heard him he hadn't seen tape, he was taking his OL's word for it. We will see if you call in what he thinks if he's seen tape. It was still a horrible play by the LT, especially if he was attempting to block the LB.
 
Well, it was an obvious chop block.

I just wished that he would have chipped the defender and moved onto the second level to block #21, instead of just diving toward the ground.

Man, though, the center straight up killed his responsibility. The rest of the line did a great job on the play, as well.
 
LagrangeJacket said:
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.
Click to expand...
You could argue the contact was initiated by the opponent because #25 pushed him down and into the legs
 
How do we know the intention was not to make a chop block by making a horrible, belly flop, phoney cut block attempt at another player and actually going for the NG?

I don’t blame the player, but Sewak for teaching in this situation, at the 13 yard line, this type of crap blocking. Put your head down and go low without keeping your eyes on your target. Just crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top