Life as a Noseguard Just Got Better

The NFHS (National Federation of State High School Association) is the body that writes the various high school sport rules that most states follow. They've made a change for football in 2011 that will make things a little safer, especially for defensive linemen.

In the past, a chop block was a "delayed" block at the knees or below on an opponent that was already engaged with the blocker's teammate. The classic example involved the center pass blocking a nose tackle. The left guard, after setting for a pass block and checking for blitz, would then turn his attention to the nose, already working against the center. If the guard attacked the knees of the nose tackle at that point in time, it was a 15 yard penalty for chop blocking.

But if the center and guard were instead double-team blocking for a running play, things were quite different.  If the guard shot out to cut the knees of the nose tackle even if the nose had already engaged the center it was not considered a chop block, because the guard's block was initiated simultaneous to the center's block.

This type of blocking was known as a form of 'high/low' blocking, and was not illegal in high school football last year. It was a controversial style of blocking, and some (I hope most) coaches refused to teach it... but it wasn't illegal. As of 2011, this type of block will now fit the definition of a chop block, and should draw a flag.

You can read the NFHS statement about the change here: Chop Block Rule Redefined in High School Football, but a chop block is now defined to be

"a combination block by two or more teammates against an opponent other than the runner, with or without delay, where one of the blocks is low (at the knee or below) and one of the blocks is high (above the knee)."

Let me unpack this a little. In the past, the language said that a chop block was

"a delayed block at the knees or below against an opponent who is in contact with a teammate of the blocker in the free blocking zone."

Note that in the past, the requirements for a chop block were

1. a delayed block 
2. at the knees or below
3. thrown against an opponent that was in contact with a teammate of the blocker
4. in the free blocking zone 

In the new definition, we must have

1. A combination block by two or more teammates against an opponent (other than the runner)
2. with or without delay
3. where one block is low (knees or below)
4. and another block is high (above the knees)

The 'in contact' requirement of the old rule is gone. So NFHS appears to be telling officials, for a chop block there must be two or more guys throwing a block at the same defender.* If one of the blockers is pulling away and not engaging the defender himself, and is coincidentally contacted by that defender's upper body, that doesn't preclude a cut block in the free blocking zone by another blocker. In that case, the defender would actually be the one 'blocking' the pulling offensive player, and would not be protected by this rule. Who blocked whom becomes a defining factor.

*By the way, who fouls in the new definition? In the old rule, it was the blocker throwing the delayed block. In the new rule, is it BOTH guys? I suspect refs will name the low blocker as the guilty party.

Nevertheless, I think this is a good change, that should improve the safety of players. (In fact, I called for this change at the youth level two years ago, and am quite shocked that I've lived to see it happen.) The rule relieves umpires from having to determine whether a delay occurs between two blocks. Now these officials can simply decide whether a combination block was both high and low. I'm anxious to see how umpires interpret various blocks and situations, and whether or not the new chop block rule is ever called.

Watch closely in games with very tight offensive line splits. When splits are tight, it is very easy for blocks to appear to happen with adjacent teammates. That means that ANY cut block by an offensive player runs the risk of being a chop block, whether initiated at the snap or delayed. A defensive tackle can probably protect his knees simply by getting into the gap between two opponent's upper bodies and sustaining contact or continuing to attempt to split them. Once he's done that, I think most refs will determine that he can't be legally cut.

It works both ways though! The offensive linemen are now more protected than previously. Watch Gap Air Mirror defenses and other goal line arrangements, like defending extra-point tries. Any defense that runs two 'bear crawlers' into an offensive lineman's legs runs the risk of being called for a chop block. If the offensive blocker can get his hands on the upper body of ONE of those players, the other crawler can't initiate contact at the blocker's knees or below. If he does, that fits the definition of a a chop block, and should be a 15 yard penalty.*

* Many fans assume that blocking rules only apply to offensive players. This isn't true. The rules of blocking also apply to defensive players, with a few exceptions for tackling the ball carrier or shedding blockers. So for example, blocks below the waist by defensive backs designed to 'take out' lead blockers have long been illegal in high school football, however seldom called.

The 'wedge' play that many double wing offenses like to run should be improved, because a defense won't be able to crash into the offensive line's legs if those linemen are already engaged.

So this is actually a pretty big change if the rule is enforced. I suppose that like many rule changes in sport, officials will have an adjustment period where they will miss a percentage of these fouls because they aren't used to watching for them. There will also be some old timers who don't like the new rule, and will turn a blind eye, believing that they have a better understanding of the 'spirit' of the rule or some other such nonsense.

Finally, just like the many wonderful plays I draw on my computer, we won't really know how this will work until we start working with it on grass. But on balance, I believe this will be a good rule change, and I encourage coaches and refs to follow and enforce this new rule, and see how it works out for all of us.

Rules In Play

A few football rules have come into play this fall that are interesting to write about.

In week one the opponent for our black team was granted a 5th down (see Coach Lee's post below.)

We talked to the crew about the whole series of plays before the 5th down play was run, but they chose to grant the offense the play anyway.

We didn't make a big deal about it, other than to try to get the situation corrected before the 5th down snap. But the crew chose to leave the down marker as it was, having given Olathe South two 2nd down plays - one at the end of the first quarter, and the other at the beginning of the second quarter.

Turned out that it didn't hurt anything, but we spoke with the officials about it before the snap because we thought it was a correctable error. They told us in the conference pictured above that they knew they'd made a mistake with the down marker. But in our view, they then chose to fix that error by making another mistake. As an official, you hate it when you make a mistake. But you can seldom make things right by pretending that you didn't make a mistake. It probably should have been first down ONW, with referee apologies to Olathe South for having the down marker set incorrectly. Instead, we got the apology, and they got a 5th down.

In our White team's game last Saturday, our referee was giving our opponent's offense a little too much time in the huddle. We complained a bit, and he enforced a delay-of-game penalty for us on the next play when they took too long.

But then he started the clock.

To me, this was an obvious error. If the clock restarted after a delay of game penalty, any coach could virtually kill a game with repeated delays. And in fact of course, the clock procedure after delay IS in the rulebook under Rule 3 Section 4 Article 3-i.  I couldn't have told you that precise location before the game, but you can bet that I can tell anyone where it is today.

What was more interesting to me was the reaction of the various coaches on our sideline to this mistake as it happened. We were all fairly convinced that the ref had it wrong, just because it had to be wrong, based on an intuitive understanding of the game. And yet the ref and line judge both maintained that yes, it probably would be possible to run out much of the clock with repeated delay penalties.

I made a note of this on my evaluation form, as possibly being an exception to the generally pretty good job the officials did in that game. Then just as a follow-up (and to be sure I wasn't crazy) I checked the book, found the specific rule, and sent a quick e-mail to the league supervisor of officials about that and the 5th down situation I mentioned above. To my surprise the league supervisor admitted that he too would have started the clock after a delay penalty, but that in fact we were right about the rule.

I guess this rule must not be as intuitive as I thought, but I'm pretty sure our league knows how it works now.

Finally, I did a bit of research this summer about BBW - that's referee shorthand for 'block below the waist'. In high school football, Rule 9 Article 2 generally prohibits blocking below the waist, except down in the trenches under certain conditions.  However, blocking below the waist is defined within the definition of blocking (Rule 2 Section 3 Article 7) as "Blocking below the waist is making initial contact below the waist..." (my emphasis of the word initial.)

I wondered if this exception by description might allow a down-field punch block in the numbers, followed immediately by a cut technique below the waist. In fact, given the wording, I wondered why wouldn't ANY down-field low contact be OK if the blocker had initially contacted the defender above the waist.  Several other referees had written that contact had to be sustained to meet that exception - but I could not find the word sustained, continuous, or anything like it anywhere in the rulebook.

I had verbal and written conversations with multiple officials pointing out the absence of the language necessary for sustained contact, and was pretty convinced that I'd found a legal way to throw low blocks down the field. But as it turns out, I've since decided that such a technique would be illegal.

By definition blocking is 'obstructing by contact'. Once contact is broken, a blocker is no longer blocking, even if he is standing right beside the defender he just blocked. So the punch and cut technique down the field that I was envisioning would actually be TWO blocks. And the second block would be illegal.

To look at it another way, substitute the definition for the term blocking itself in the blocking below the waist description: "Obstructing by contact below the waist is making initial contact below the waist..." In other words, obstructing by contact can't be blocking below the waist unless it starts as blocking below the waist.

That's why experienced refs had written that the block had to be 'sustained.' If you start high and fall down in the process, sliding down the body of the defender - in fact if any number of different things happen that might seem to make the block illegal, including the guy turning his back on you during the sustained block - you're actually legal if you started legal.

There's a great discussion of NCAA low blocking right here.

Someday when my knees are completely shot (instead of only half shot as they are now) and I can't cope with being a soccer referee any more, I think it would be a great challenge to be a football official.  Until then I'll just work amateur hour on Saturdays from the sidelines.