|
That play does not look dirty to me. First of all, the tight end hit the defender first, then the tackle hit him. That's a "reverse chop" block. Secondly, the defender does not get to decide who hits him. That's the defender's fault for not protecting himself. So purely on the video, I don't consider that play from the tight end to be even borderline dirty. That looks to me like a good block.
On top of that, for me to consider a play to be "dirty", I'd also like there to be some fairly good evidence of intent. The Broncos linemen are claiming they didn't intend to both engage the defender. There is nothing about that play that makes me think the Broncos are lying about that. The dual engagement is a necessary element for a "chop block".
The technique of the defender on that play, by the way, was risky, in my opinion. If the tackle didn't hit him--and it doesn't look to me that the tackle hit him with anything more than the amount of force that fathers giving away their daughters at wedding use--there wouldn't have even been a discussion of the term "chop block", which has to do with nearly simultaneous engagement high and low. The injury to the defender was, in my opinion, the result of the low block from the tight end and the obliviousness of the defender to the possibility that such a block may be delivered. The tackle didn't cause that injury, but the fact that the tackle gently touched the defender is what made it a "chop block".
But I'm looking at this from the way that we used to play on the line of scrimmage when I was in high school back in the 80's. Maybe the rules are different nowadays, either in the letter or in the interpretation.
In general, though, I've never had any problems with the fact that the Denver Broncos block players on offense. That's what the hell you're supposed to do. And you don't need to get permission from defenders to block them, either.
|