I'm scheming for the offense I'd like to install, given a chance this year. It'd be like a standard wing T, but...non-standard! (One of these indulgences like the sidesaddle T, wherein the coach -- me -- equally loves wing T and single wing systems.) The fullback's going to be adjusted forward to be definitely within NFHS rules' free blocking zone, and offset slightly toward the wingback side. There will be plays snapped between the quarterback's legs for the fullback to step into. The wingback will of course not be a lineman, and may or may not line up inside NFHS's free blocking zone.
I'm thinking of installing a "down" or belly G play, versions where the FB gets the ball via handoff from the QB and versions where he takes the snap as described above; snapper's head will stay up, it's a blind snap, soft and splitting the QB's crotch. This play is not where my concern about the legality of blocking is.
Where my concern is, is a direct-snapped play to complement the above, to be called "direct 83 wham" (or maybe "direct 23 wham"). (Full call: "fly direct 83 wham on 1". Would work equally with many formation tags.) It relies partly on the defense's not being able to tell whether the WB for his initial steps is in "fly" (flat across) or "blimp" (orbit aiming behind the FB) motion. A DT in a 3 or 2 tech will already be subject on various plays to a base block, a guard trap block, a cross or down block from the tackle, a wham block from the QB, and this one will subject him to a wham from the WB coming from outside. He and the LB behind him are going to see what looks like belly G but the O tackle seeming to miss his down block, and the DT is going to have what looks for the moment like a free shot at a FB who has just gotten the ball. And then the WB who's been in "fly" (jet) motion for just a split second is going to wham him from outside and the FB to step around him between that and the OT's fan-out block, while the QB goes thru the A gap to get in front of this mess.
I'm going to tell the wing to try for a knockdown by hitting the DT high and hard. I'm contemplating 3 types of form, in the knowledge that what's actually done, and an official sees, won't exactly be any of them. One form would be both hands open, hitting just below shoulder height on whatever parts the defender presents. Another would be downfield shoulder into armpit, downfield hand on defender's front and earhole on defender's back. The third would be with the upfield shoulder, head in front, but I don't like it as much because I think it leaves the blocker's head and neck vulnerable. The defender may at the time of contact be angled inward, so contact might easily be in the small of his back. If the defender's pads are low enough, the blocker would land on the defender's back.
I know not all the conditions for an illegal blindside block would be met, because this contact, though forceful (and maybe with shoulder technique) would be in the free blocking zone with the ball's never having left it. However, much of the time it would appear to be an illegal block in the back, inasmuch as it's by a non-lineman. The opponent may or may not have turned his back before the blocker is committed to his charge. Contact may or may not occur in that crucial area that's scapula-height but between them. I don't expect officials to make these discriminations finely as to the actual instant of contact. However, what I'm interested in is any experience you might have as to how officials who see the play developing are ruling on it. Are they using the provisions in Fed's rules that say if there's any doubt as to whether it's a blindside block, it is? Are they being generous or stingy as to blocks in the back that occur in the first few steps of line charges?
If you think it'd be ruled illegal, and I don't get a definitive answer from the league's spring meeting between coaches and officials, I probably won't install it. I don't want the DL to think he has a free shot as long as he's angled inward, since after all that's exactly the purpose of this play as a complement to mal-executed ones where he actually would have such a free shot. If the WB had to lay off, the DT would have a near-spectacular shot at a nearly flat-footed player in the backfield, unless the DT is so slow as to make all this scheming useless anyway -- which I'm sure many DTs at our level would be. And part of my motivation is to give a wingback who may be small a confidence-boosting easy block.
That's a lot to follow, but the gist of it seems to be that you want to block a LB in the back with a WB.
1) Only linemen (on the LOS) can block in the back in the FBZ
2) Only DL (on the LOS) can be blocked in the back in the FBZ
2-17-3
Game plan? I got your game plan. We gonna run the bawl some. We gonna throw the bawl some. We gonna play some defense. We gonna run some special teams, but we better not run kick return but one time and we sure as heck better not punt.
That's a lot to follow, but the gist of it seems to be that you want to block a LB in the back with a WB.
1) Only linemen (on the LOS) can block in the back in the FBZ
2) Only DL (on the LOS) can be blocked in the back in the FBZ
2-17-3
Not a LB, unless he's blitzing.
Anyway, a block that we think is on an opponent's back isn't always considered a block in the back. A lot of what I'd consider someone's back is considered part of the shoulder and not back by Fed, so a hit at that height is frequently not blocking in the back. A player who turns away from a hit after a blocker is committed to hitting him isn't considered to have been blocked in the back if the blocker wasn't facing his back when he started his "charge". And a player who bends down may be hit on the back by a higher player.
If the DT charges straight, the hit won't be in the back. If the DT slants outside, the hit won't be in the back; the DT might slant outside if he's been used to resisting a down block. It's only if the DT slants inside that the hit might be on the area Fed considers the back.
If the DT stays in the neutral zone and tries to wrong-shoulder, he'd present his back but he wouldn't need to be blocked at all. If the DT just stands there like a brick, then he's not the type of DL I'd scheme such a play against, but he wouldn't be hit in the back either.
I think we're talking about 2 different rules here.
Blindside aka "defenseless player" has nothing to do with the FBZ. If you're teaching your WB to "go for the knockdown" and he does it, then he is probably guilty of a blindside hit. FBZ doesn't come into play.
Blocking in the back, as I understand it, is allowed in the FBZ by a lineman against a lineman. You pointed out a half dozen nuances on whether a block in the back is, in fact a block in the back or just looks like one. If there's a chance, I don't teach it, but that's me.
Back to your questions:
- Are they using the provisions in Fed's rules that say if there's any doubt as to whether it's a blindside block, it is?
- Are they being generous or stingy as to blocks in the back that occur in the first few steps of line charges?
I stopped trying to figure out what refs may or may not be thinking a very long time ago. Some refs are fine with what another ref is not fine with.
- Had a ref 2 seasons ago look me in the eye and tell me "facemask to facemask is 100% legal"
- Had a father/son crew that in one game let my DE get lit up between the 8 and the 1 on the back of his jersey for an entire game. After a particularly vicious hit that actually caused my DE to scorpion, the SJ (the son) said, "Okay, that was borderline". Same crew 6 weeks later in our championship game called us for 3 invisible blocks in the back. All 3 called back TDs.
- Had a ref last season that wouldn't allow us to kick off with 6 on one side of the kicker. When I showed him the rule, he said, "It's a new rule that's currently being discussed"
So if you're scheming based on what a ref might or might not call, you may consider changing your scheme. Maybe your refs are better than ours.
Game plan? I got your game plan. We gonna run the bawl some. We gonna throw the bawl some. We gonna play some defense. We gonna run some special teams, but we better not run kick return but one time and we sure as heck better not punt.
I think we're talking about 2 different rules here.
Blindside aka "defenseless player" has nothing to do with the FBZ. If you're teaching your WB to "go for the knockdown" and he does it, then he is probably guilty of a blindside hit. FBZ doesn't come into play.
Sure it does. Unless it's been amended or renumbered, by 9-4-3(n), the prohibition on blindside blocking applies only outside the free blocking zone.
All the Rule 2 stuff does is define what a blindside block is. Rule 9 says when a blindside block is illegal.
Blocking in the back, as I understand it, is allowed in the FBZ by a lineman against a lineman. You pointed out a half dozen nuances on whether a block in the back is, in fact a block in the back or just looks like one. If there's a chance, I don't teach it, but that's me.
Back to your questions:
- Are they using the provisions in Fed's rules that say if there's any doubt as to whether it's a blindside block, it is?
- Are they being generous or stingy as to blocks in the back that occur in the first few steps of line charges?
I stopped trying to figure out what refs may or may not be thinking a very long time ago. Some refs are fine with what another ref is not fine with.
- Had a ref 2 seasons ago look me in the eye and tell me "facemask to facemask is 100% legal"
- Had a father/son crew that in one game let my DE get lit up between the 8 and the 1 on the back of his jersey for an entire game. After a particularly vicious hit that actually caused my DE to scorpion, the SJ (the son) said, "Okay, that was borderline". Same crew 6 weeks later in our championship game called us for 3 invisible blocks in the back. All 3 called back TDs.
- Had a ref last season that wouldn't allow us to kick off with 6 on one side of the kicker. When I showed him the rule, he said, "It's a new rule that's currently being discussed"
So if you're scheming based on what a ref might or might not call, you may consider changing your scheme. Maybe your refs are better than ours.
Thanks. It really looks like a "have to try it" situation. On Huey's someone gave me an example of an anti-crackback tactic I already know -- angling the DE in -- that would definitely result in a block-in-back call if you hit them that way. But I'm interested in how inhibited I should feel about blocks against DL penetrating in the middle of the line when the block is by a non-line player coming from outside in.
I'm looking at 2-28-16, which is pretty clear about it and 9-4-3g. 9-4-3n definitely muddies the water, though.
With our last group, we had a couple of teams who were obviously coached to turn their backs on downfield blockers. Some were successful in drawing penalties. Some were not. Depended on the refs. I remember one ref telling a complaining kid "what did you think was going to happen if you turn your back on him?". Defender was actually back pedaling toward our backfield.
[edit]
2017 case book is pretty clear that blindside blocks are okay within the FBZ. Blocks in the back in the FBZ can only be executed by linemen on linemen. Blitzing LB? Only if he walks up on the LOS, IMHO. If he blitzes from depth, can't be blocked in the back legally.
Game plan? I got your game plan. We gonna run the bawl some. We gonna throw the bawl some. We gonna play some defense. We gonna run some special teams, but we better not run kick return but one time and we sure as heck better not punt.
FWIW: maybe some one brought this up already and I missed it, but... The FBZ only applies to players who are lined up in the FBZ at the snap. The FBZ allowances do not apply to players who were aligned outside the FBZ when the ball is snapped and then come into the FBZ.
Umm.... why does that 6 ft tall 9 yr old have a goatee...?
FWIW: maybe some one brought this up already and I missed it, but... The FBZ only applies to players who are lined up in the FBZ at the snap. The FBZ allowances do not apply to players who were aligned outside the FBZ when the ball is snapped and then come into the FBZ.
Yeah. Bob addressed that. His WB won't be purposely blocking anyone in the back, but acknowledges that it may look like an illegal block in the back. Blindside blocks are 100% legal in the FBZ and the rules don't limit who can execute blindside blocks in the FBZ. Poorly thought out and poorly written if you ask me.
Game plan? I got your game plan. We gonna run the bawl some. We gonna throw the bawl some. We gonna play some defense. We gonna run some special teams, but we better not run kick return but one time and we sure as heck better not punt.
I'm looking at 2-28-16, which is pretty clear about it and 9-4-3g. 9-4-3n definitely muddies the water, though.
2-28 is OK, but all it tells you is what counts as a blindside block. (Deciding what is one is still unclear because of the judgment of how long the opponent gets to see it coming!) It doesn't tell you under what circumstances a blindside block is illegal, which is what 9-4 is for. The mere fact of contact's being a blindside block doesn't make it illegal, the factors in 9-4-3n do. It's actually easier to see whether the factors in 9-4-3n obtain in a certain situation than to see whether the defining factors in 2-28-16 do, as discussed in the point of emphasis on it when it was adopted, which I'v reading from the next year's edition (2018) and don't want to reproduce here. But a blindside block via open hands and/or in (with the ball in) the free blocking zone is always legal. I don't think that's likely to be the problem.
With our last group, we had a couple of teams who were obviously coached to turn their backs on downfield blockers. Some were successful in drawing penalties. Some were not. Depended on the refs. I remember one ref telling a complaining kid "what did you think was going to happen if you turn your back on him?". Defender was actually back pedaling toward our backfield.
[edit]
2017 case book is pretty clear that blindside blocks are okay within the FBZ. Blocks in the back in the FBZ can only be executed by linemen on linemen. Blitzing LB? Only if he walks up on the LOS, IMHO. If he blitzes from depth, can't be blocked in the back legally.
That's where I don't know if it'll be called if it occurs near where the ball was spotted. The block won't be under circumstances where a block "in the back" would be legal, but it will occur under circumstances that make it hard to tell whether it occurred on what Fed considers "the back" or whether the unstated exception for an opponent who has turned his back just in time to present it to a blocker who was already going to hit him applies. And I don't mean an opponent deliberately trying to draw a foul, I mean one who's just swum or ripped or submarined his way into the backfield past an OL who was trying to let him get past. And that might depend how far laterally the fullback has moved. If the FB is still in his tracks after having taken the snap (which involves a short step the other way and then a pivot backwards on that foot), the DT could be angling inward after him. If the FB has gotten a step toward where the hole is supposed to develop (as a result of the wham), then the DT should catch the block in the side. To make this work we might have to not motion the wingback, to give enough delay, but the beginning motion would be to make it look like the half spin series. If I didn't want that look (to fool LBs) and delay, then I'd just have the G and T cross-block, whereupon blocking in the back would be legal.
Another play in the series would have the quarterback block the DT, but since that's coming from inside out, nobody's going to be looking for a block in the back to flag, even though in fact it might occur if the DT is chasing what he thinks is a rocket pitch.
I've never coached on a team that had a wham block installed that I can remember, so this would all be new to me. I'm just wondering whether officials seeing motion across by a wing or flanker are looking to see (or imagine) a block in the back in a crowd on the near side near the center.
The larger strategic context of this question is that I want to call this and complementary plays with "ends over": my tag for switching tight and split end, with the line staying balanced. So the wingback is on the split side. The idea is to get the defense aligned to what they'd see as our strength, and if they're in an odd front they'd have the nose guard at least leaning to our TE side -- if not when they see the formation, at least when the wing starts motion ("fly" or "blimp", threatening jet or belly sweep, respectively). That should free the split side guard to get a hat on a LB.
Since I've been coaching in this league I've seen odd fronts from about half to a solid majority of the time, probably because we're part of the plurality of teams that run wing T. I rarely saw odd fronts in any of the places I coached back in NY, where I didn't see much wing T either -- though it was run by the Gun Hill Rebels, where I coached abortively in 2008.
Latest Post: Flipping the switch Our newest member: onlinenakshatra Recent Posts Unread Posts
