The CardBoard
Chop Blocks - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Chop Blocks (/thread-7718.html)

Pages: 1 2

Chop Blocks - 81alum - 09-06-2014

Quote:CHOP BLOCK
ARTICLE 3. 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)
(FR-28, 2013 and 2014 NCAA Rules and Interpretations.)

This is the official rule.  Comments? 

Re: Chop Blocks - Rally - 09-06-2014

(09-06-2014, 07:23 PM)81alum link Wrote:
Quote:CHOP BLOCK
ARTICLE 3. 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)
(FR-28, 2013 and 2014 NCAA Rules and Interpretations.)

This is the official rule.  Comments?

It is what it is.  The language is clear and the call was correct.  Damnit.

Re: Chop Blocks - jacketree - 09-06-2014

FWIW, Husak was adamant that it was the correct call.

Re: Chop Blocks - needle - 09-06-2014

I, too, agree it was the right call.

Re: Chop Blocks - dabigv13 - 09-06-2014

I think the Potter Stewart "know it when I see it" definition applies here. Has anybody seen that called before? I haven't. A RB dove at the legs, which sent him flying in the air, and a lineman nudged him. This was not a player who was engaged by a blocker down low then blocked from above.

That situation happens plenty, and this is the first time I have ever seen it called.

Re: Chop Blocks - OutsiderFan - 09-06-2014

It might have been by definition a penalty, but it was by no means flagrant.  And, it was not a dangerous play due to the fact Garnett hardly touched the LB after Wright upended him. 

Re: Chop Blocks - BigEasyCard - 09-06-2014

The call fits the rule as presented above.  Regrettably, this one probably cost us the game.

I have seen it called occasionally.  Don't recall many instances where it goes uncalled.  A strict interpretation protects players from potentially serious injury. 

O-Line inexperience has been a common theme on the board.  Hopefully their play will improve significantly before our next stern test on September 27.

Geaux Cardinal!

Re: Chop Blocks - oman - 09-06-2014

It was a chop block. 

And the fumble was a fumble.

Re: Chop Blocks - OutsiderFan - 09-06-2014

A chop block is generally understood to happen when a defender is being blocked up high, and then another player hits him low, while he is engaged.  The penalty is designed to prevent leg injuries.  The things that burn me the most about it is that the penalty had no bearing on the play's outcome (TD pass), the player blocked wasn't at risk for injury, and Garnett barely touched the guy after Wright had already upended him.

Re: Chop Blocks - oman - 09-06-2014

(09-06-2014, 07:54 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:The things that burn me the most about it is that the penalty had no bearing on the play's outcome (TD pass), the player blocked wasn't at risk for injury, and Garnett barely touched the guy after Wright had already upended him.

I think you can say that about a lot of plays.  Certainly many holding calls and not sure that Sark's bitching and moaning had an effect on any plays.

Re: Chop Blocks - BobK - 09-06-2014

I get home and turn on the ucla game and at the half announcers showing this play and both say bad call.  But it's over we move on.

Re: Chop Blocks - Ratmandoo - 09-06-2014

Rick Neuheisel took a look at the play on the PAC 12 network post game show and thought it was a bad call. He showed the same rule language and thought the USC linebacker initiated the contact. What was Remound Wright supposed to do on that block?

Re: Chop Blocks - StanFan88 - 09-07-2014

(09-06-2014, 07:23 PM)81alum link Wrote:
Quote:CHOP BLOCK
ARTICLE 3. 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)
(FR-28, 2013 and 2014 NCAA Rules and Interpretations.)

This is the official rule.  Comments?

Initially I thought it was the correct call but after seeing replay multiple times I notice two things:
1. Garnett hit the defender on the hip, not above the waist
2. Garnett hit the defender AFTER Wright cut him.  Defender was no longer engaged by Wright

However, that call should never had made one whiff of a difference.  Other than the defense this was the worst Stanford performance in the Shaw era.

Re: Chop Blocks - scorecard - 09-07-2014

(09-06-2014, 07:23 PM)81alum link Wrote:
Quote:CHOP BLOCK
ARTICLE 3. 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)
(FR-28, 2013 and 2014 NCAA Rules and Interpretations.)

This is the official rule.  Comments?

Like most NCAA rules, this rule is poorly written.  Doesn't the blockers' opponent pretty much always initiate contact on a pass play?  What does that even mean?  With or without a delay? 

I can see it both ways, the ref made a call in a bang-bang play, and I can't blame him for erring on the side of player safety.  But I don't think there would have been any controversy if he didn't make that call.  No one would have claimed that it was a blatant illegal missed chop block.  It was actually a great block by Wright, cutting down a larger defender rushing in at full speed.  I agree with OutsiderFan and dabigv, it was technically correct, but not really in the spirit of the rule as intended.

Speaking of chop blocks and cut blocks, I would like to see our taller D-linemen (particularly Henry Anderson, who is way too valuable to lose again) not play much, if at all, against Army.  If we can just make it out of the Army game without any leg injuries, I will be happy, no matter what the margin of victory.

Re: Chop Blocks - Roberton3 - 09-07-2014

Based on the letter of the rule, the play was pretty clearly a chop block.

But we all know that there are lots of cases where the letter of the rule diverges from the way calls are actually made.  If referees actually followed the letter of the rule, they'd call offensive holding on nearly every play, and pass interference (offensive, defensive, or both) on lots of passes. 

The same is true with chop blocks: if referees actually called them based on the way the rule is written, you'd see a lot more chop block calls.  So, unfortunately, reading the rule doesn't help at all in this case.

Re: Chop Blocks - CornFed - 09-07-2014

scorecard made a great point.  Clearly, the way the call was made results in significant controversy.  The play would not have been noticed if the call had not been made.  If the call weren't made, but the telecast had noticed it and focused on it, it is my sense that fans of the University of Fake Drowning Nephews (despite their infantile demeanor) would not be as upset as supporters of the Mighty Card are in the wake of the call being made.

Re: Chop Blocks - pcgoode - 09-07-2014

I went to the game yesterday and was sitting too far away to see the alleged chop block. However, I did bump into ESPN's Chris Fowler after the game. Without any prompting from me, he offered up that he thought Stanford fans would have a lot to complain about on that call.

Re: Chop Blocks - cardcrimson - 09-07-2014

Sorry. Terrible call. They called the penalty on Wright, not on Garnett. Whether Garnett hit him high or low after the contact with Wright is irrelevant. The penalty was on Wright's block, which was clean as Garnett had whiffed up to that point.

Re: Chop Blocks - 81alum - 09-07-2014

(09-07-2014, 12:38 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Sorry. Terrible call. They called the penalty on Wright, not on Garnett. Whether Garnett hit him high or low after the contact with Wright is irrelevant. The penalty was on Wright's block, which was clean as Garnett had whiffed up to that point.
That is a very interesting point, and persuasive--the penalty was on Wright and not on Garnett.  Wright delivered an outstanding block.  If Garnett had previously been blocking the unimpeded rusher than it would have been a chop block even if there had been an interval.  I bet the refs simply assumed that Garnett had already touched him when in fact the man was untouched before Wright went down.

You've changed my mind.  Bad call. 

Now, we play Army which is famous for cut blocks that can easily turn into dangerous chop blocks.  Let's hope the refs are eager to call lots of chop block calls next week, so that our three starting defensive linemen come out of that game with six intact knees.

Re: Chop Blocks - pefloresjr - 09-07-2014

Terrible call.  Trying to not focus on this too much because bad calls are part of the game and Stanford had plenty of chances to win the game despite the bad call. 

However, I think it was a really bad call because the rule against chop blocking is to prevent combination, simultaneous high/low blocks.  The language referencing whether or not there is a delay is meant to include a situation where the high and low blockers hit the defender at the same time as well as the "traditional" chop block where the high blocker engages the defender before the low cut block takes down the unprepared, defenseless defender.  It does not mean that consecutive blockers can't block high and low if the first blocker has disengaged from the defender.  For a chop block, it must be a combination block.  Any other interpretation would lead to absurd results and would not protect the players from the risk of injury that the rule is intended to eliminate.  The play in the game consisted of a cut block followed by an attempted high block that didn't even make real contact.  Terrible call. 

Cheers,
Pete F.