[Rally]

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.

I agree.  Shouldn't have mattered.  Like the missed FGs.  As Wright said, we should have been scoring touchdowns, not relying on field goals.

[Rally]

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.

I agree.  Shouldn't have mattered.  Like the missed FGs.  As Wright said, we should have been scoring touchdowns, not relying on field goals.