Chop Blocks outlawed by the NFL
- Thread starter HRC08
- Start date
I think the point is when player safety becomes the flavor of the times so much that the nfl continues to legislate more aspects of chop blocks (used to be legal in run plays, now it is not), the difference between cut block and chop block will likely become viewed as negligeable. Yes I know there is a difference but practically speaking the momentum seems to be heading towards them not really being different.
The definition of a chop block includes the word cut block for crying out loud, it's a cut block while the defender is engaged with another blocker. The clock is ticking.
The definition of a chop block includes the word cut block for crying out loud, it's a cut block while the defender is engaged with another blocker. The clock is ticking.
Yes, I hope the cut block is outlawed as well. Too many cheap shots at knees.
Chop blocks have been illegal for a long time. They'll just be watching more for it...
The day that cut blocks become illegal (where I think things are trending) will be a sad day for football. I fully understand the need for "player safety", but the NFL is increasingly moving it's brand towards the NBA model... Lets see if a team can score 100 points in a game and if the opposition can keep pace. If you breathe on a guy wrong it's a penalty. This is why the NBA has lost me, despite my Raptors being good for the first time since they came into the league. The game has become soft and football is slowly and surely moving in that direction as well. Look, I'm not saying that I want guys to get injured, but the frank reality of the situation is this. Despite being born-and-raised in a country that appears socialist compared to yours, I'm 100% Capitalist in my mindset. I have no problem with a guy making millions of dollars per year to play a game. None what-so-ever. What I have a problem with are people that want to have their cake and eat it too. You want the riches, the fame, the lavish lifestyle and ability to do whatever you want financially, simply by playing a game and having a work career that will likely last no more than 10 years? That's fine. All the power to you. I hope you get filthy rich, enjoy money and treat the people you care about well... But don't bitch and complain about the physical consequences of participating in said game. You're making the kind of money that most people could only dream about and you're making it in 1/3 of the working lives of most people. If you get concussed 15 times along the way, that should be your problem, not the games'.... The game and the way it was meant to be played should be altered only to make it more efficient or to ensure progression in the sport.
I'm 100% on board with the elimination of chop blocks (or at least the further attempt to enforce the existing rule) but I'm probably in the minority of people who thinks all they penalties for targeting, hitting with the crown of the helmet, hitting quarterbacks above the shoulders and below the waste, etc, etc, are complete BS... That's coming from a guy who is engaged to a clinical psychologist who specializes in brain injury rehab patients.
Play the damn game. Collect your riches and let the fans enjoy watching you play!
The day that cut blocks become illegal (where I think things are trending) will be a sad day for football. I fully understand the need for "player safety", but the NFL is increasingly moving it's brand towards the NBA model... Lets see if a team can score 100 points in a game and if the opposition can keep pace. If you breathe on a guy wrong it's a penalty. This is why the NBA has lost me, despite my Raptors being good for the first time since they came into the league. The game has become soft and football is slowly and surely moving in that direction as well. Look, I'm not saying that I want guys to get injured, but the frank reality of the situation is this. Despite being born-and-raised in a country that appears socialist compared to yours, I'm 100% Capitalist in my mindset. I have no problem with a guy making millions of dollars per year to play a game. None what-so-ever. What I have a problem with are people that want to have their cake and eat it too. You want the riches, the fame, the lavish lifestyle and ability to do whatever you want financially, simply by playing a game and having a work career that will likely last no more than 10 years? That's fine. All the power to you. I hope you get filthy rich, enjoy money and treat the people you care about well... But don't bitch and complain about the physical consequences of participating in said game. You're making the kind of money that most people could only dream about and you're making it in 1/3 of the working lives of most people. If you get concussed 15 times along the way, that should be your problem, not the games'.... The game and the way it was meant to be played should be altered only to make it more efficient or to ensure progression in the sport.
I'm 100% on board with the elimination of chop blocks (or at least the further attempt to enforce the existing rule) but I'm probably in the minority of people who thinks all they penalties for targeting, hitting with the crown of the helmet, hitting quarterbacks above the shoulders and below the waste, etc, etc, are complete BS... That's coming from a guy who is engaged to a clinical psychologist who specializes in brain injury rehab patients.
Play the damn game. Collect your riches and let the fans enjoy watching you play!
High Schools now recently eliminated clipping inside the free blocking zone as well. NCAA has not -- yet.
Is the free blocking zone the same thing as inside the tackles within a yard of the line of scrimmage? That is how I recall it.
Agreed the element of risk has always been a key part of the magic and excitement of the game.
I've been away from HS football for a while, so am not aware of this change. How is clipping inside the free blocking zone defined now? Suppose you block a guy straight on, but then the defender tries to roll around to get by and you end up blocking his back, is this a clip? If so, I think its a bad rule, will result in many stoppages to walk off penalties (much like girls' lacrosse) once defense linemen get smart and learn to turn around when blocked.
You may be right, but not clear that the excitement for fans trumps player safety.
Granite, I was referring to excitement for the players not the fans! But I could have communicated it more clearly . However the excitement for the fans certainly adds to the excitement for the players and the overall experience. Additionally no heroes without risk of some sort.[smile]
I'm well aware of the difference but I'm also aware (and so is Robert Blanton) they are notorious CHOP blockers at the WR position and on.the OLine. Leave it to echo to be a douche though. Now I remember why I left this pious board a long time ago. Too many chiefs, not nearly enough Indians.
Not to be try to be a Dick but How does a wide receiver chop block. The defender needs to be occupied by one blocker and cut by the other. I don't recall seeing that very much out wide.
they aren't chop blockers at all. you obviously DON"T know the difference.
The Blanton play from a few years ago - while a dirty play in my opinion - was not a chop block.
"Suppose you block a guy straight on, but then the defender tries to roll around to get by and you end up blocking his back, is this a clip?"
Herb -- in this instance, then no, this is not clipping as the initial contact was in the front (Assuming there was contact). If the defender just turns...yea, I can see your point, but the defender could also eliminate himself from the play by worrying more about getting a foul called vs playing. The rule "intent" is to eliminate the block below the knees from behind in the FBZ. Now, still in play is the cut block, which must be immediate action at the snap and in the front. Once the ball leaves the FBZ (and in the shot gun, is immediate), then all blocking below the waist is illegal (in HS).
Not being an umpire (who has the best line of sight in there at the snap), this rule, while the intent is good, will be somewhat hard to catch.
People complain about little Navy - they play with heart, passion, discipline and do it the right way.
Please correct me if I recall something incorrectly. I recall that your earlier post linked injury risk with excitement now clarified to be player excitement. I consider it doubtful that many players consider injury risk to be part of the excitement they may feel; the excitement comes from the positive plays they make, not plays made against them.
Whether they consider it or not does not mean that it isn't operative.It's not an intellectual exercise it is more hormonal,tribal and visceral than thoughtful. [smile]
Still insufficient reason to retain cut blocks; shooting at knees is still wrong in my opinion.
It has been part of the game since the boys at Harvard came up with the first rules in @1875.As an old olineman I fail to see how that could be "Wrong"
The game has changed since then so this is not a very significant, satisfying, or convincing argument. The same argument could have been uttered when face masks were introduced.
Players are bigger and stronger and the force constants of collisions are higher so it is wrong to shoot at vulnerable parts of the body and damage anther player's life for a what is most probably a modestly better result.
I also oppose unnecessary down-the-fields hits that injure players, much like Jaylon Smith suffered. Nothing illegal about Decker's hit, but it was unnecessary. I know players are taught they never know what is happening behind them, but there are senses of reasonable expectations when an additional block will be consequential or not and the players are not that stupid to be able to realize this even during a play. Same reasons why players are expected to stop before hitting the QB; players and coaches excuse ridiculous hits all the time based on the silly, even stupid, tradition argument.
So what? Nothing should change? Not acceptable to me as we know more about the cause and prevention of injuries. Clipping was not banned until 1916. Was that move also wrong because clipping had been happening since the game started?
Well Granite, I think it is significant , it satisfies me, and I am definitely convinced, therefore using your logic you are wrong and I am .. right.. and smug...smile! You may want to tune in to dancing with the stars, I think they may play by your rules.[just kidding]
where are the studies that show eliminating it would make a significant impact on injuries ? i have no problem with it at all.
decker simply pushed him. how do you outlaw that ? no pushing ? its football. you'll never make it injury free. shall we just go to flag football then ? i know guys who blew out knees playing that too. where does it end ?
I understand, but the point is to get players trained from youth to stop making unnecessary hits. Yes, injuries will happen even in simple actions, but that is not the same as arguing that efforts should not be made to attempt the reduction of injuries. Arguing that these plays have existed since the beginning is specious.
again where does it end ? do you play to the whistle or not ? define unnecessary ?
If you banned football it would definitely reduce injuries. If you continue to water it down you get the equivalent of what the pro bowl has become.
Not that difficult. The policy makers could decide on parameters of distance from play (ball), time after contact, etc. to use to call plays. So much of the action down filed or across the field comes to "What if" scenarios regarding whether a ball carrier "might" break free. Sure, may happen but reducing injuries need to be considered.
Football coaches are amongst the worst chicken-little people where anything they do not like becomes equivalent to the end of the world. It is no wonder that football players and coaches get a stereotype of being stupid.
