Hit on Fuga a legal block...

Wac supervisor of officials was on radio up here in boise today. Stated they reviewed the hit and it was legal according to the rules, though they have been trying for two years to make it illegal. He did state that the hit would help with future efforts to outlaw that specific block.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

CaptainCoug wrote:
Wac supervisor of officials was on radio up here in boise today. Stated they reviewed the hit and it was legal according to the rules, though they have been trying for two years to make it illegal. He did state that the hit would help with future efforts to outlaw that specific block.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Guess wac officials disagree with bender's own coach on that one. they also disagree with me, bronco, and everyone else with a brain.

I can't wait to jump out of the stands in Logan and do a Bender block with my measely 230, on one those "WAC-o-Crack" officials and get up and ask him if thinks that's legal too! Fircken Bozo Wac-a-doo officials.

Sorry, not apologizing for that one Hawk.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Well, he got his helmet in front--barely--which technically makes it legal. However, blocks below the waist in the open field should be banned. PERIOD. Too much risk of injury allowing those types of plays. Had he gone high, Fuga is still playing now. I still think it was a clip.

So now that I am at a computer....I was surprised at his "views" on a couple of hits he was reviewing. MWC officials had the game, but this man Will Blackmon or Blackwood reviews tape from all conferences (or so he says) and said these hits are a weekly occurrence in the Big Ten, and that Big Ten has been trying to outlaw them for quite a while. He basically does not like the hit, but said it was a perfectly clean play. I disagree.



He also was looking at a hit (helmet to helmet) in the Boise vs OSU game and said there was malicious intent, which I disagreed with....



Anyway, my point is, after seeing both hits, I have a completely opposite opinion of the head honcho ref, Nevada hit was dirty, Boise hit was a football play.



I guess the rules may dictate what is clean or dirty, but this officials opinion on them was very different than what I thought would be the case.

It isn't whether or not his helmet is in front or behind his knees. It is a high-low block, or what is known as a chop block. When he starts his pursuit he is at 3/4 height (running hunched) when he starts the block he is above the opponent's (Fuga) waist. He ends the "block" by diving at the knees and then rolling through.



A cut block is legal. A cut block is when you start at the height of the players knees, and proceed to drive through them. "Cut" - as if you where to cut them off at the knees.



"Chop" referring to the high-low motion. Starting from high, ending low at the knees. Regardless of where the block was happening in relation to behind or in front, it doesn't take away from the fact that it was high/low and that is illegal.



There is a difference between a clip, chop block, and a cut block.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
It isn't whether or not his helmet is in front or behind his knees. It is a high-low block, or what is known as a chop block. When he starts his pursuit he is at 3/4 height (running hunched) when he starts the block he is above the opponent's (Fuga) waist. He ends the "block" by diving at the knees and then rolling through.



A cut block is legal. A cut block is when you start at the height of the players knees, and proceed to drive through them. "Cut" - as if you where to cut them off at the knees.



"Chop" referring to the high-low motion. Starting from high, ending low at the knees. Regardless of where the block was happening in relation to behind or in front, it doesn't take away from the fact that it was high/low and that is illegal.



There is a difference between a clip, chop block, and a cut block.

I think you need to research chop blocks some more. Actually, upon rereading your post, you should research cut blocks too, though your misunderstanding there isn't quite so bad--you don't need two blockers for a cut block like you do for a chop block.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

snoscythe wrote:



I think you need to research chop blocks some more.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Are you referring to the fact that 2 people are usually involved? One holding the player up and the other diving? It is most always called that way, but it doesn't have to be that way. When you are right next to a defender, and you go low not directly in front of them, you will get called more often than not, even if it's just one guy.

snoscythe wrote:

It isn't whether or not his helmet is in front or behind his knees. It is a high-low block, or what is known as a chop block. When he starts his pursuit he is at 3/4 height (running hunched) when he starts the block he is above the opponent's (Fuga) waist. He ends the "block" by diving at the knees and then rolling through.



A cut block is legal. A cut block is when you start at the height of the players knees, and proceed to drive through them. "Cut" - as if you where to cut them off at the knees.



"Chop" referring to the high-low motion. Starting from high, ending low at the knees. Regardless of where the block was happening in relation to behind or in front, it doesn't take away from the fact that it was high/low and that is illegal.



There is a difference between a clip, chop block, and a cut block.

I think you need to research chop blocks some more. Actually, upon rereading your post, you should research cut blocks too, though your misunderstanding there isn't quite so bad--you don't need two blockers for a cut block like you do for a chop block.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

A cut block is legal... maybe you should also do some research.

Cut block as illustrated by Warren Sapp



http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81821ec8/Cut-block-demo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A cut block is sometimes legal, sometimes.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:
It isn't whether or not his helmet is in front or behind his knees. It is a high-low block, or what is known as a chop block. When he starts his pursuit he is at 3/4 height (running hunched) when he starts the block he is above the opponent's (Fuga) waist. He ends the "block" by diving at the knees and then rolling through.



A cut block is legal. A cut block is when you start at the height of the players knees, and proceed to drive through them. "Cut" - as if you where to cut them off at the knees.



"Chop" referring to the high-low motion. Starting from high, ending low at the knees. Regardless of where the block was happening in relation to behind or in front, it doesn't take away from the fact that it was high/low and that is illegal.



There is a difference between a clip, chop block, and a cut block.

I think you need to research chop blocks some more. Actually, upon rereading your post, you should research cut blocks too, though your misunderstanding there isn't quite so bad--you don't need two blockers for a cut block like you do for a chop block.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

A cut block is legal... maybe you should also do some research.

Never said it wasn't. But your concept of a cut block starting at some height and ending at another is absurd. It has nothing to do with how you start--just going at the legs from the front and it's legal--usually. Cut blocks are actually illegal after a turnover recovery, and announcers sometimes mistakenly call them chop blocks, but it's actually called an illegal block below the waist when the ref calls it, not a cut block, and again, only when a defensive player goes at the legs of an offensive player following a turnover.



Chop blocks ALWAYS require two blockers:



http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/season_preview_2008_rules_changes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Chop Block how to: using one or more players.



http://www.ehow.com/how_4523129_perform-chop-block-football.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The chop block is one of the most dangerous plays in all of football. There are actually two different types of chop blocks, both of them illegal. In one instance, an offensive player will use his shoulder or helmet to block an opponent below the knee either from the side or from behind. A chop block can also be called when this same hit is made while a defender is being blocked by another offensive player and thus can't see the hit coming. (emphasis added)

Chop Block

(offense) An offense player tries to cut block a defensive player that is already being blocked by another offensive player. The second block may need to be below the thigh or knee, depending on the code.



Oh no! Ehow and Wikipedia disagree!!

Chop block/Illegal block below the waist, it's the same thing.



A cut block is always legal. When a cut block is called for a penalty, it is an "illegal block below the waste" or also referred to as a chop block.



People throw around the verbage for both of these, calling "Cut's" Chops, and vice versa.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Chop block/Illegal block below the waist, it's the same thing.

I'd have to disagree with you here, as there are two different and distinct penalties in football for the "high-low combination/chop block" and "Illegal block below the waist."

we are arguing semantics... i think.

Schmoe wrote:

Chop block/Illegal block below the waist, it's the same thing.

I'd have to disagree with you here, as there are two different and distinct penalties in football for the "high-low combination/chop block" and "Illegal block below the waist."

I agree, but they also refer to the "illegal block below the waist" as a chop block because of the chopping motion. I think we are arguing semantics...

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Chop block/Illegal block below the waist, it's the same thing.

I'd have to disagree with you here, as there are two different and distinct penalties in football for the "high-low combination/chop block" and "Illegal block below the waist."

Yes, but they also refer to the "illegal block below the waist" as a chop block because of the chopping motion. I think we are arguing semantics...

We totally are, but isn't it fun? :lol:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Chop block/Illegal block below the waist, it's the same thing.

I'd have to disagree with you here, as there are two different and distinct penalties in football for the "high-low combination/chop block" and "Illegal block below the waist."

Yes, but they also refer to the "illegal block below the waist" as a chop block because of the chopping motion. I think we are arguing semantics...

We totally are, but isn't it fun? :lol:

Yeah, you might be right... But I'm .... errr.... Right too!!!



I'm... errr... RIGHTER!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: