WestPac Week 4

[RamblinMan]

One more thing I'd like to add. Towards the end of the game...it got ugly. It was bad enough they tried to rough up our qb but when you have players chop blocking, you've got a real problem there. I'd be one of the first to congratulate the Vikings becoming competitive again, the new lights...all those things but after the display I saw in the fourth quarter, it almost wants me to rethink my opinion of this "feel good" story. Some will deny it happened but I was there...I saw it with my own two eyes.

[Guest]

Just curious what do you consider chop blocking?

[crfball]

We use to cut block all the time in high school we actually had drills for it in practice

[Guest]

That was my point, a cut block is legal between the tackles. Some people think it is a chop block, it is not a chop block is one guy high and one guy low

[thereplacement2]

he is referencing a chop block not a cut block. one of windbers good players was injured on a flagrant, intentional, cheap shot.

[Prince Sidewinder]

Ramblin Man - I was at the game. Windber has a real nice team but let's get to the point of your last comment. There was an illegal block called on BV in the fourth quarter and the #75 left the game. Matt Grohal, and apparently you, think these two players conspired to take #75 out, next you will be saying the coaches ordered it. BVs #55 cut blocked (legal block) all night probably because he could not handle #75. What made it illegal is #58 hit him high on that particular play. You would think if they wanted him out they would have done it in the first quarter, might of gave the Vikings a better chance. Now Grohal starts passing the ball up 27-12 to show BV he is angry. They score and he does a little dance with #34 who was the kid who got off setting personal fouls with BVs #59 who I might add was removed from the game at that point. I witnessed Bill Zamboni personally let him have it and did not allow him back in the game. Also BVs QB was drilled after a pass and a personal foul was called on a play during the game. Windber has a nice team with several weapons and Blacklick Valley will do just fine. The story is still a fine one and I am sure they have some super kids as does Windber.

[RamblinMan]

First off, that block happened well outside the tackles so it had to be called....everyone and their mother saw it. Now at the time, I gave the players the benefit of the doubt that it was probably unintentional. After the game, when I got word of some of the comments and actions on the field from the BV players after that play, I became livid.

I admit, I'm somewhat close to this situation so my comments may have been soured by raw emotions. And never did I say these kids are coached up to play that way and I very seriously doubt that Zamboni would have approved. I may have spouted off to soon because those types of plays can end a kids highschool career. For that I apologize. And now, a night later I can also understand players having certain reactions and making comments on the field after taking out a player during a game, Especially one with conference implications and both teams looking to stay undefeated. I guess I was more upset about what was said after the play than what happened during it. But if I'm wrong and it was intentional, then all I can say is "shame".

[RamblinMan]

Also BVs QB was drilled after a pass and a personal foul was called on a play during the game. Windber has a nice team with several weapons and Blacklick Valley will do just fine. The story is still a fine one and I am sure they have some super kids as does Windber.

I missed this comment earlier so let me respond. Watch the film on this play and let me kow if you still feel it was a penalty. Keep in mind, most people (probably including you) thought the call was made because the hit was late. That in fact wasn;t why it was called. The call was made bacause the ref believed he hit the qb in the head. The ref actually said this himself. Now again, watch the fiolm and tell me where contact was made. If you watch, and it doesn't need to be done carefully, you will see the hands were into the qbs pads...not his head.

But yeah, the argument could still be made that the hit was late even though that's not what was called. But again, if you see the film you'll notice that it was bang bang.m The qb didn't even take one step and he was hit. If we feel that was a late hit then maybe we really do need to put dresses on our quarterbacks.

[Richland_Fan]

I was talking to an official who was watching the Richland game last evening and the topic of chop blocking came up. I was under the impression that it was legal "in the zone" as well but was enlightened that the only time any block below the waist is allowed is in the area between the tackles 3 yards on either side of the line when the ball is actually also in the zone. So, if a team is in shotgun it is always illegal.

Here is an excerpt from the NFHS football rules, that the PIAA follows, that was pretty educational to me anyways :

ILLEGAL BLOCKING BELOW THE WAIST In high school football, there are very specific rules regarding the time and circumstances when blocking below the waist is legal. There continues to be problems with game officials not enforcing these restrictions on who can block, who can be blocked and where/when these blocks can occur. In order for a block below the waist to be legal, the following criteria must be met:
1. Both players must be lined up in the free-blocking zone at the snap and on the line of scrimmage. The freeblocking zone is defined as 3 yards on either side of the line of scrimmage and 4 yards either side of the ball. 2. The contact/block must occur in the free-blocking zone.
3. The ball must still be in the free-blocking zone.

The NFHS Football Rules Committee wants to emphasize several examples where it is important to enforce this rule. When a team is lined up in shotgun formation, the restrictions on blocking below the waist begin the moment that the ball leaves the free-blocking zone. Because a shotgun quarterback is usually positioned more than 3 yards behind the line at the snap, when the ball is snapped the ball very quickly leaves the zone and therefore, the only legal blocks below the waist have to be initiated simultaneously with the snap. Another common example of an illegal block below the waist is when running backs, who line up in the backfield, are “cut” by defenders on sweeps or on roll-out passes. This is clearly a violation of the blocking- below-the-waist rule because it occurs by a player who was not originally on the line of scrimmage and occurs outside the free-blocking zone. Remember, players on the line of scrimmage and in the free-blocking zone at the time of the snap can legally block below the waist, but only if the free-blocking zone still exists because the ball has not left the zone. The rule applies equally to the offense and the defense.

[Prince Sidewinder]

RamblinMan - I just sat and watched the film, again. The block was definately inside the tackles, if you have the film take a look. #55 from BV cut blocks him which is fine but another player cannot engage high. BV completed a quick seam pass on that play Also when you watch it focus on #34 from Windber, a lot of extra curricular. But BV #59 seems to be doing the same. The personal foul was not on BV for doing anything to the QB of Windber but off setting between Windber #34 and BV #59. You would never want to play Purchase Line if you think the Vikings are not sportsman. I am disappointed that Coach Grohal assumed that the block was on purpose and responded by passing while up 15 with under two minutes in the game. RamblinMan watch Navy and Georgia Tech play and watch how they block the Veer , all cut blocks. BV ran the Veer all last season. I think Blacklick Valley does a terrific job in football with participation and by putting a solid team on the field, remember they graduated 38 students last year. Good Luck to both the Ramblers and Vikes the remainder of the season.