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

gtzulu said:
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.
Click to expand...

100% agree here.
 
And I am still gonna give a shout out to a tremendous guard pull. Beautiful pull
 
ElCidBUZZingFAN said:
Yep but I do wonder who had a bigger 'Oh öööö' moment in their head...#4 or #54.

Shamire coming downhill at you has got to be terrifying.
Click to expand...
I hope they both get a snack today during film time. Shamire's made with Olestra and Splenda, of course.
 
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...
I also like how 67 slows the DE out of the play and is going to the next level to get a DB. That is a beautifully designed play.
 
JJacket said:
I also like how 67 slows the DE out of the play and is going to the next level to get a DB. That is a beautifully designed play.
Click to expand...

Ya, #24 and #22 are obviously reading the pulling guard and playside A-back and screaming counter option and run themselves completely out of the play.
 
gtnap said:
No he doesn't.
Click to expand...

PazWGjv.png
 
I haven't read the rules but hope they aren't based on "intent". We sure don't need refs making calls based on what he thought the player was trying to do... mind reading should not be required.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
I haven't read the rules but hope they aren't based on "intent". We sure don't need refs making calls based on what he thought the player was trying to do... mind reading should not be required.
Click to expand...
Not if fuk mind rite STR8UP
 
Intent is not a reading of the mind . Intent is a analysis of what the refs see.

Example: You trip a player while laying on the ground. It is obvious that no intent was intended (no motion) even if the outcome is obstructing the defender.

You kick with your feet and trip a defender, the intent is applied due to the action.

Here the intent was to block 25 and not 8 as interpreted by the actions not what is in the mind. Also, 62 does not initiate contact with 8. 8 hits/trips over 62. Both intent per the blocking rule and initiated contact by the defender in the chop block rules would logically prove this is not a chop block.

I am not sure why people can't see that 25 must be blocked and 62 is heading for the space 25 would occupy if he did not stop to avoid the block. 25 even did the old cut block defense move on 62.

I think a point of reason may be the following. There was a high low impedance of number 8 that would appear to be a chop block. But, upon further review, the low block was not a block on the defender in question. The defender was pushed over the person accused of the low block. This would have been hard to see in real time.

No reading of the mind required.

If 62 was on all 4s and was pushed over by 55, would that be a chop block? No it would not. The only difference here is that 62 is flying through the air.
 
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...

That's not what intent means. Imagine the following scenario:

The center and left guard immediately block the nose tackle at the snap- the center at the chest, and the left guard at the knees. Textbook chop block.

What you're arguing is that if the left guard forgot his assignment and really, really meant to block the defensive tackle or end, it's not a chop block. After throwing his flag, the umpire should check with the offensive coordinator of the offending team and look at the blocking schematics; if the left guard was supposed to block the DE, the flag should be waved off because the left guard didn't intend to block the nose tackle.

Obviously, that's an absurd way to enforce the rules, and obviously not the way it's done. In this case, the left tackle intended to cut block someone: it just so happened that he whiffed and blocked another guy who was engaged above the waist. It's a chop block, and you're grasping at straws.
 
I disagree that this is a textbook chop block, but it is a chop block nonetheless.

If our center is getting held on his way to the 2nd level and the holding DT gets cut by the guard, that is not a chop block.

If our guard gets thrown under the DT who is being blocked high by the center, that is not a chop block.

If our guard accidentally cuts an engaged DT while trying to block the LB, that is a chop block.

It's just like a roughing the kicker call. If you get blocked into the kicker, it's not a penalty. If you dive to block the ball with no intention of hitting the kicker, but accidentally get him in the legs, it is unquestionably a penalty.
 
When I first saw the gif, my instant reaction was chop block - and that is with my being biased by the post-game presser comment about it being a bogus call. After watching it again, I see that it is not a chop block as is contemplated by the rules. I think the OT was unlucky. He was diving towards the center of the line on the cut block and the NT was moving or being blocked that way as well and the timing was such that the OT was still in the process of executing the cut block when NT moves into him while the center is still engaged high. It probably looked like a textbook chop block in real time, and so I can't fault the official for calling it.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
I haven't read the rules but hope they aren't based on "intent". We sure don't need refs making calls based on what he thought the player was trying to do... mind reading should not be required.
Click to expand...

The NFHS (high school) rules don't use the word intent:

"Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker's body."

However, NCAA rules still don't care whether you blocked your intended opponent or not- just 'an opponent'.
 
LagrangeJacket said:
The NFHS (high school) rules don't use the word intent:

"Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker's body."

However, NCAA rules still don't care whether you blocked your intended opponent or not- just 'an opponent'.
Click to expand...
Thats what you would hope. If they got to base it on intent, they could call it on our oline when they wiff diving for the ankles.
 
Jacketblind said:
Just heard the head of ACC officials reversed the call after reading this thread.
Click to expand...
Headed to the stadium now. Try to delay while they get the teams ready. Is VT still in town? Did they hang around waiting for the decision. The ACC moves slow on these things. I think they are still video reviewing a few calls right now
 
Why are we so insecure about this topic to generate four pages of discussion? We hit the defender high and low, thus a penalty was called. End of story. We aren't the only team who gets this flag. It happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top