|
Replies: 30
| visibility 5835
|
Freshman [1]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
1
Sep 15, 2024, 11:22 AM
|
|
I'm sure everybody knows which play I'm referencing. If not, here is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfwS1zJCo7Q&pp=ygUlc291dGggY2Fyb2xpbmEgdnMgbHN1IGJsaW5kc2lkZSBibG9jaw%3D%3D
I believe that, according to the rules pertaining to "blindside blocks", they made the correct call and, actually, let them off easy. In the clip, you can see that the SC player initiated contact using their forearm, this is even clearer when you see a screenshot of the block: https://imgur.com/a/A9djIEY
The rule of a "Blindside Block" (updated in 2019) states that:
In college football, a blindside block is an open field block that's initiated from outside an opponent's field of vision, making it difficult for the opponent to defend against. The rules for blindside blocks include:
Forcible contact: A blindside block is considered a personal foul if it involves forcible contact with an opponent.
Targeting: If a blindside block hits an opponent's head or neck, it's considered targeting.
Exceptions: Blindside blocks are not considered illegal if they're directed at the runner or a receiver attempting to catch a pass.
Contact within the tackle box: Contact within the tackle box is legal because it's not considered a significant cause of injury.
The applicable terms of this rule are the "forcible contact" and "targeting". I believe the SC player, according to the rules, could easily have gotten a targeting penalty for the contact that was created. I would just like to discuss the call according the rulebook because I don't see many CFB fans online who have referenced the wording of the actual rule instead of their own interpretations.
|
|
|
|
 |
Valley Legend [12488]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
4
Sep 15, 2024, 11:34 AM
|
|
Nothing to discuss. It happened. It was the right call. It should have been targeting as it was forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player. I think only the die hard chicken fans want to argue that was a bad call.
On the other hand, they do have a point that the officiating was horrible in favor of the Tigers. I point out that great teams find a way to overcome horrible officiating. We have had to do that so many times. The chickens had ample opportunities to win the game in spite of the refs. Period. LSU did enough to win. The lamecocks did not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [1]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
1
Sep 15, 2024, 11:38 AM
|
|
I would 100% agree they got screwed on a few calls during that game. I just feel this wasn't one of them.
As far as your other point, you're spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1759]
TigerPulse: 57%
31
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
Sep 16, 2024, 9:46 AM
[ in reply to Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion ] |
|
I think that what people are arguing is that the dude was no longer the QB he was a defender and therefore no blindside block it was pushing him out of the play as a defender 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3299]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Kennard only needed to get in front of the LSU QB, not forcibly push him to the
Sep 15, 2024, 11:38 AM
|
|
ground. The LSU QB had no chance of being involved in the tackle. Correct call all day long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [3072]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
2
Sep 15, 2024, 11:44 AM
|
|
I mean the scar player hit the quarterback and instantly threw his hands up in the air like he didn’t do anything. That’s before any flags game. Doing that means you know you are guilty of something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4779]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
Sep 15, 2024, 1:09 PM
|
|
Yea….it’s the same gesture they make on the street when caught stealing or hitting a defenseless person or when getting out of a car after being chased at 100 mph for 15 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32816]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 35621
Joined: 2003
|
i didnt see anything wrong with the play
1
Sep 15, 2024, 11:47 AM
|
|
if it wasn't the QB , im sure it would not have been called
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7925]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
blindsided blocks protect players and this Gamecock took a deliberate
Sep 16, 2024, 9:49 AM
|
|
shot at LSU QB when he thought he had the chance.
Glad the refs were watching and did see this. Clear violation, not sure why you see nothing wrong with it. Player not looking, hit/blocked very high chest/neck area is definition going back towards the opponents goal is the definition of blindside block.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2649]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
I agree, he pushed him in the shoulder as an instant reaction to pick
Sep 16, 2024, 10:16 AM
[ in reply to i didnt see anything wrong with the play ] |
|
At first I thought how dumb of him to hit the qb, but watching in real time I think if they don't throw that flag on it nobody complains.
Also, the dumbest thing a player can do is put their hands up like "I dindu nuffin". Screams guilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18000]
TigerPulse: 95%
52
Posts: 26757
Joined: 2006
|
meh it was a horrible call. coots got hosed***
1
Sep 15, 2024, 12:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [3099]
TigerPulse: 69%
33
|
Correct. The Coot blocker barely moved.
2
Sep 15, 2024, 12:51 PM
|
|
Nussmeier ran into him and actually created a lot of the contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4754]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: Correct. The Coot blocker barely moved.
Sep 16, 2024, 9:40 AM
|
|
Bluffton
bullyshitt
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7925]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Correct. The Coot blocker barely moved.
Sep 16, 2024, 9:52 AM
[ in reply to Correct. The Coot blocker barely moved. ] |
|
you clearly watched another video. Did you not see the Coot defender arms extended completely through the LSU QB ?? I loate both teams so seeing all these players getting crushed was fun to watch on video.
Always nice to see the Coots and LSU stink it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [3099]
TigerPulse: 69%
33
|
Not even.
1
Sep 15, 2024, 12:49 PM
|
|
If your interpretation is correct, every tackle is targeting because it involves forcible contact. That just isn't so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4754]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: Not even.
Sep 16, 2024, 9:41 AM
|
|
Bluffton
Exceptions: Blindside blocks are not considered illegal if they're directed at the runner or a receiver attempting to catch a pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1187]
TigerPulse: 92%
26
|
Penalty yes, but not even close to targeting. He
Sep 15, 2024, 1:01 PM
|
|
shoved in his shoulder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29255]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 21987
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Penalty yes, but not even close to targeting. He
1
Sep 15, 2024, 1:28 PM
|
|
They always, always blame it on something when they lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [1]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
2
Sep 15, 2024, 1:06 PM
|
|
This is comedy to believe this was the right call.
A. The blocker was never outside his field of view
B. He was inside the tackle box
C. He was a legitimate defender at the point he made a move towards the ball.
Poor officiating by a freshman officiating team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24083]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
1
Sep 15, 2024, 3:18 PM
|
|
That you coot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1888]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
1
Sep 15, 2024, 3:19 PM
[ in reply to Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion ] |
|
A. Unless you think he can see through his ears it was outside his field of view.
B. The tackle box disappears after the ball is thrown. This is entirely irrelevant.
C. How is this relevant? Being a "legitimate defender" suddenly permits illegal blocks?
10/10 officiating crews make this call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3658]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
4
Sep 15, 2024, 1:11 PM
|
|
Best to not take a shot at a quarterback and risk the penalty. It’s called discipline. SCjr is not. That’s why they lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28425]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 13253
Joined: 2014
|
The way I look at this is
4
Sep 15, 2024, 1:18 PM
|
|
If that was our QB, would you think it was the right call? I think it was the right call. Even if that was our defensive guy making the hit, I would have to admit that looks like the right call to me. Not targeting, but a blindside hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2215]
TigerPulse: 95%
32
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
1
Sep 15, 2024, 3:09 PM
|
|
Excuse me sir. I'm about to block you. Are you ready?
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7925]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
Sep 16, 2024, 10:20 AM
|
|
now that is funny lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5536]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Any SC fan that wants to argue this call is an idiot
2
Sep 16, 2024, 9:48 AM
|
|
Clear as day
If they want to argue, they should complain about the offensive pass interference call. That was a real judgement call and if it were called against Clemson, I’d be hoppin’ mad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1759]
TigerPulse: 57%
31
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
Sep 16, 2024, 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Looks like most of the comments on. That video defend the coots 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5098]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
Sep 16, 2024, 9:52 AM
|
|
It was clearly a blindside block, my only issue with players....especially when if it happens to our team is that its so unnecessary. More times than not, the play is already passed the penalty that occurs. We all know the defensive player just uses that as an opportunity to take a free shot on the QB and they ended up paying the price. He literally could just stood in front of the QB and its a TD. Most players that get stupid penalties like that just have 0 awareness and a low football IQ. The correct call was made, it was just a dumb decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7925]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: South Carolina "Blindside Block" Rules Discussion
Sep 16, 2024, 9:55 AM
|
|
Exactly. It is the QB, the defender knew this without question, and took a cheap shot that hurt his team. It actually ended up costing his team the game, beautiful sight to behold.
Just stand in front of the QB, he has very little to no chance to make a play anyway so just get in his way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5183]
TigerPulse: 42%
38
Posts: 17168
Joined: 2005
|
It was definitely the right call
1
Sep 16, 2024, 10:09 AM
|
|
and our fans would be losing it if the roles were reversed.
It was a clear cheap shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7700]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Not many times can it be said truthfully that a single player cost a Team.
Sep 16, 2024, 10:20 AM
|
|
BUT your guy Kennard really cost your cawks that game. He was playing stupid. Stupid enough that Beamer should have sat him for a few series imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 5835
|
|
|
50
