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

Dhatura said:
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.
Click to expand...
Kenny Cooper is a hell of a center. We've almost been mistake proof at that position. Amazing considering he played DL in HS and had never played center.
 
gt2690b said:
You could argue the contact was initiated by the opponent because #25 pushed him down and into the legs
Click to expand...
He barely touched the offensive tackle and had no effect on the direction of the dive. He was simply avoiding a block
 
@JJacket What would have happened if 62 would have drove blocked 8? 25 would have killed the mesh with TQM and Benson. 62 did his job and prevented 25 from getting to the mesh. This much I know to be 100% right.
 
Longestdays said:
@JJacket What would have happened if 62 would have drove blocked 8? 25 would have killed the mesh with TQM and Benson. 62 did his job and prevented 25 from getting to the mesh. This much I know to be 100% right.
Click to expand...
Still, intention and what would have happened has nothing to do with what did happen.

I don't know if he would have disrupted the mesh had our tackle used better technique or not. He may have not crashed further in. Hell, I don't know because that play didn't happen. I know in our OT's poor technique got us 15 yards. Could he have used better technique and cut his actual assignment, the LB? Probably. He was not supposed to block the NT at all on the play, that was Kenny Cooper's assignment and he manned up on the NT.
 
And shouldn't you be working on the slow motion video? I like those. Shout out and call JJacket an idiot during that play.
 
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...

Wrong again. Here's the definition of blocking, from the rules (section 2-3): "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body." The rule does NOT say: "Blocking is obstructing the opponent one is aiming for by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body."

If the rules were written like this, hardly anything would be a foul. The PI we had called for us wouldn't be a foul, since the VT DB didn't intend to play through the receiver. Here, GT55 obviously initiates high, and is disengaging, but that doesn't matter for a chop block (9-1-10). GT52 blocks low, but he whiffs his block by launching willy-nilly and hits GT55's man below the knees.

I thought the game wasn't officiated particularly well. The PCO had his head up his ass the whole game, there was blatant OPI on one of VT's fourth down conversions, the non-measurement on the overturned 1st down was bad, and the FJ missed the clear DPI against VT (fortunately, the BJ bailed him out). But especially at the HS level (I'm not a college official), safety rules are becoming a 'when in doubt, throw the flag' situation. There's no way the official gets dinged for making this call- it was a dangerous play, and within both the letter and spirit of the rules as 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...
Very well put GTCrew4b. This is exactly as I see it. A DL/LB being pushed over another blocker is as common as holding, and just as common is not flagging it.
The rule is intended for engaged blockers, not afterthought pushes that wouldn't knock over a gnat.
The one we got away with early on was pass interference by one of the twins and the one we got jobbed on was interference called on the same twin which was BS.
 
JJacket said:
The main problem isn't the call. It is the terrible technique by our LT. It doesn't even look like he had a plan other than flinging himself to the ground.
Click to expand...
I suspect CPJ will throw that flag in the film room today.
 
LagrangeJacket said:
Wrong again. Here's the definition of blocking, from the rules (section 2-3): "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body." The rule does NOT say: "Blocking is obstructing the opponent one is aiming for by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body."

If the rules were written like this, hardly anything would be a foul. The PI we had called for us wouldn't be a foul, since the VT DB didn't intend to play through the receiver. Here, GT55 obviously initiates high, and is disengaging, but that doesn't matter for a chop block (9-1-10). GT52 blocks low, but he whiffs his block by launching willy-nilly and hits GT55's man below the knees.

I thought the game wasn't officiated particularly well. The PCO had his head up his ass the whole game, there was blatant OPI on one of VT's fourth down conversions, the non-measurement on the overturned 1st down was bad, and the FJ missed the clear DPI against VT (fortunately, the BJ bailed him out). But especially at the HS level (I'm not a college official), safety rules are becoming a 'when in doubt, throw the flag' situation. There's no way the official gets dinged for making this call- it was a dangerous play, and within both the letter and spirit of the rules as a chop block.
Click to expand...

If the red part is the language of the rule, then holy moly - that's some really bad verbiage.

They are putting intent into the rule so good luck making sure @Longestdays doesn't win the internet.
 
LagrangeJacket said:
Wrong again. Here's the definition of blocking, from the rules (section 2-3): "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body." The rule does NOT say: "Blocking is obstructing the opponent one is aiming for by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body."

If the rules were written like this, hardly anything would be a foul. The PI we had called for us wouldn't be a foul, since the VT DB didn't intend to play through the receiver. Here, GT55 obviously initiates high, and is disengaging, but that doesn't matter for a chop block (9-1-10). GT52 blocks low, but he whiffs his block by launching willy-nilly and hits GT55's man below the knees.

I thought the game wasn't officiated particularly well. The PCO had his head up his ass the whole game, there was blatant OPI on one of VT's fourth down conversions, the non-measurement on the overturned 1st down was bad, and the FJ missed the clear DPI against VT (fortunately, the BJ bailed him out). But especially at the HS level (I'm not a college official), safety rules are becoming a 'when in doubt, throw the flag' situation. There's no way the official gets dinged for making this call- it was a dangerous play, and within both the letter and spirit of the rules as a chop block.
Click to expand...


(section 2-3): "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body."

Intentionally is the key word. If you kick to trip while on the ground it is a penalty. If you tripped over a fallen player, it is not a penalty. Also I would state that the defender initiated contact with 62. 62 did not hit 8, 8 backed over 62.

And I also don't think 62 will be ashamed of his block. 62 kept the LB from hitting the mesh. The LB decided to avoid the block. Perfect outcome. The non perfect is the that the refs could not see this in slow motion and called a chop block when there was no chop block.
 
Longestdays said:
(section 2-3): "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body."

Intentionally is the key word. If you kick to trip while on the ground it is a penalty. If you tripped over a fallen player, it is not a penalty. Also I would state that the defender initiated contact with 62. 62 did not hit 8, 8 backed over 62.

And I also don't think 62 will be ashamed of his block. 62 kept the LB from hitting the mesh. The LB decided to avoid the block. Perfect outcome. The non perfect is the that the refs could not see this in slow motion and called a chop block when there was no chop block.
Click to expand...

Ya, I thought it was 50-50 myself, but when looking at it slow mo, reading the rule, and thinking about it more, in many ways, it's the reversal of a scenario where #55 makes high contact (without intent) of #8 as he's going after the Mike while #66 is tasked with cutting #8.

We'd be in full agreement that a chop call in that instance is bullshit. Well, the roles are just reversed on this play. High is intentional. Low is not.
 
Longestdays said:
(section 2-3): "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body."

Intentionally is the key word. If you kick to trip while on the ground it is a penalty. If you tripped over a fallen player, it is not a penalty. Also I would state that the defender initiated contact with 62. 62 did not hit 8, 8 backed over 62.

And I also don't think 62 will be ashamed of his block. 62 kept the LB from hitting the mesh. The LB decided to avoid the block. Perfect outcome. The non perfect is the that the refs could not see this in slow motion and called a chop block when there was no chop block.
Click to expand...
And how is the ref supposed to know that the player didn't INTENTIONALLY do it anyway?

Plus, you were given the rule book definition of a chop. The rule was put there for player safety. A player may not intentionally spear a player, but it is still a penalty if he does. A player may not think he really hit the ball carrier out of bounds - it wasn't intentional - but it happened so it is a penalty. Yes, blocking is intentionally getting in front of someone to impede their progress. However, taking the knees out from under an engaged player, intentional or not, is still a penalty.

I totally get that blocking is intentional. The chop block rule is a player safety rule and has nothing to do with intent.
 
Longestdays said:
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....

Click to expand...

Dude, that's a chop block. 59 goes right at 8 high, and then 52 submarines him while he's engaged. Now I will admit that VT has been trying to 'draw' chop block calls by holding linemen from getting to the second level and then crying about getting cut while they're holding for decades. It's Bud Foster's signature trick. But this was not that. This was a chop block.

If 59 was trying to go anywhere else than straight at #8 you might have a case, but he's not.
 
JJacket said:
And how is the ref supposed to know that the player didn't INTENTIONALLY do it anyway?

Plus, you were given the rule book definition of a chop. The rule was put there for player safety. A player may not intentionally spear a player, but it is still a penalty if he does. A player may not think he really hit the ball carrier out of bounds - it wasn't intentional - but it happened so it is a penalty. Yes, blocking is intentionally getting in front of someone to impede their progress. However, taking the knees out from under an engaged player, intentional or not, is still a penalty.

I totally get that blocking is intentional. The chop block rule is a player safety rule and has nothing to do with intent.
Click to expand...

How do you read the words - "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body" - if you say intent is not part of the rule?

It's no different than the play that people bitch about all the time. If our OL isn't intentionally engaging a DL, it's not a chop.
 
Given that intentionality is a part of the definition of "block", I agree with Longestdays now that it was not a chop block. But it's certainly understandable that the refs called it--hard to tell at game speed who 62 intended to block.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top