Chop Blocks Banned

[captain stone]

Note that only chop blocks were banned, not cut blocks. (Chop block = blocking below the waist while player being blocked is engaged with another blocker. Cut block = blocking low in a 1-on-1 situation.) So DEN is still in business.

Yeah I'm afraid that's likely true.

The way I see it, ALL blocks at/below the knees should be illegal EVERYWHERE on the field.

And ANY tackle at/below the knees that does NOT include the act of wrapping-up should also be illegal.

It really shouldn't be this complicated.

 

[AtomicDawg]

Another rule "change":



BB keeps on winning, even during offseason. Love it.

 

[Wheelman]

Note that only chop blocks were banned, not cut blocks. (Chop block = blocking below the waist while player being blocked is engaged with another blocker. Cut block = blocking low in a 1-on-1 situation.) So DEN is still in business.

But that's already illegal. So what's the new rule?

 

[XLIX]

But that's already illegal. So what's the new rule?

Chop blocks used to be legal in certain situations, specifically certain types of run plays. So, like the 25 yard line touchback (if that rule is passed), this brings the pro game more in line with the college game.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Just because they're banning the chop block doesn't mean the refs will actually call them on it. Denver's allowed to hold at will, I assume they will still be allowed to chop block as well.

They are pretty aggressive about calling the safety-based penalties. Holding only affects the integrity of the game, and we know how that goes.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[goheels22002]

Aren't the Pats a zone blocking team?

The Patriots are primarily a pass blocking team. Their short pass offense replaces lots of running plays and their running plays consist mostly of power running plays and sneaks. The Patriots should not be overly affected by this change like Jacksonville, Atlanta, Dallas or Denver.

When the Patriots run as a primary offensive tactic, like the 2015 AFC Championship game against the Colts, they overpower a weak front seven that the Patriots believe they can dominate. The Pats run a lot of "wham" blocking schemes to free up backs by bringing blockers in motion to take out specific defenders with above the waist blocks to halt the defender's momentum or drive him into the backfield and behind the play. Gronk is great in that role.

They don't run a Mike Shanahan zone blocking scheme like Mike McCarthy runs with Green Bay or Jason Garrett runs in Dallas.

I like this ruling. Too many linemen, on both sides of the ball, suffer knee and ankle injuries going low after one another or retaliating.

 

[1960Pats]

Does that mean the Broncos cheated to win their championships? Retroactive rule enforcement engaged.

Technically speaking, Denver only cheated to win the first two.

 

[Ring 6]

Another rule "change":



BB keeps on winning, even during offseason. Love it.

We lost in this one last year.

 

[Ring 6]

Chop blocks used to be legal in certain situations, specifically certain types of run plays. So, like the 25 yard line touchback (if that rule is passed), this brings the pro game more in line with the college game.

Pretty sure the rule was they were legal in what was known as the legal chop block zone which I think was tackle to tackle within 3 yards of line of scrimmage.

 

[Froob]

Another rule "change":



BB keeps on winning, even during offseason. Love it.

Well if it wasn't for that damn rule he might have just won his 7th Super Bowl...

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

We lost in this one last year.

still can't believe how inopportune the timing of the only missed extra point we'll see around here for a long time was.

 

[AtomicDawg]

We lost in this one last year.

This is true. It came at a truly bad time but it's a good rule nonetheless. Hurt other teams a lot more than the Pats. But yes, timing is everything here.

 

[Ring 6]

This is true. It came at a truly bad time but it's a good rule nonetheless. Hurt other teams a lot more than the Pats. But yes, timing is everything here.

I don't think it hurt more teams a lot more than the one that didn't go to the SB because of it.

 

[AtomicDawg]

I don't think it hurt more teams a lot more than the one that didn't go to the SB because of it.

But that wasn't the sole reason they didn't go to the SB. Kickers ended up missing the most extra points since 1977. Gostkowski only missed ONE (which was bad timing and I acknowledged that up there), so while it was at a bad time it didn't make as much a difference as it did for others.

 

[Ring 6]

But that wasn't the sole reason they didn't go to the SB. Kickers ended up missing the most extra points since 1977. Gostkowski only missed ONE (which was bad timing and I acknowledged that up there), so while it was at a bad time it didn't make as much a difference as it did for others.

I guess we see it differently. They are in OT in the AFCCG if he doesn't miss against a team with no QB. Maybe not cost them a SB but cost them an OT chance to go.
I don't think a sucky team missing 11 of them comes close to making that much of a difference.

 

[AtomicDawg]

I guess we see it differently. They are in OT in the AFCCG if he doesn't miss against a team with no QB. Maybe not cost them a SB but cost them an OT chance to go.
I don't think a sucky team missing 11 of them comes close to making that much of a difference.

The decision making, the lack of protection of the GOAT, and the inability to get into the redzone, to me were much bigger factors than the XP. In the grand scheme it seems much bigger because the circumstances were bigger, but really the OL was the biggest issue there. I think his first miss in 520+ attempts could have been dwarfed if another TD is scored anytime in the 4th Quarter.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Another rule "change":



BB keeps on winning, even during offseason. Love it.

Not sure id consider that a win per say... it did potentially cost us another trip to the Super bowl with Ghost's missed XP in the AFCCG.

 

[Ring 6]

The decision making, the lack of protection of the GOAT, and the inability to get into the redzone, to me were much bigger factors than the XP. In the grand scheme it seems much bigger because the circumstances were bigger, but really the OL was the biggest issue there. I think his first miss in 520+ attempts could have been dwarfed if another TD is scored anytime in the 4th Quarter.

all those things considered if we make the PAT we are in overtime.
I'm not isolating it as the sole reason for a loss, I'm saying with the way all 53 played that day missing the PAT made the difference between going to OT and likely the SB and going home.
You can't say it wasn't an enormous impact by saying we should have scored more points and not needed it.

 

[AtomicDawg]

all those things considered if we make the PAT we are in overtime.
I'm not isolating it as the sole reason for a loss, I'm saying with the way all 53 played that day missing the PAT made the difference between going to OT and likely the SB and going home.
You can't say it wasn't an enormous impact by saying we should have scored more points and not needed it.

It was a big impact but would you say it was a bigger impact than the OL not performing or the team not getting to the redzone? I'm not sure. I think that's where we differ and that's fine.

 

[AtomicDawg]

Not sure id consider that a win per say... it did potentially cost us another trip to the Super bowl with Ghost's missed XP in the AFCCG.

I mentioned before that the timing for us was really bad. But overall it has made the "other 31" have to look within as well as far as kicking is concerned. The miss for us was crucial but it was one miss out of 53 (52 made).