Denvers Oldest Tradition, Continued

[Buck]

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/10/...dinals-broncos

[EyePod]

I always liked Clady's best move. Run at someone full speed and then roll on the ground at their legs. Pro-bowler.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by DanT

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.

Yes, you are correct, but (as I recently found out) it's called a "lure." In the rule book it is listed as one of the ways to chop block. It's enforced to help avoid injury and I have no problem with the penalty being called even though it appears to be unintentional.

[DanT]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Yes, you are correct, but (as I recently found out) it's called a "lure." In the rule book it is listed as one of the ways to chop block. It's enforced to help avoid injury and I have no problem with the penalty being called even though it appears to be unintentional.

Thanks for the info, listopencil. It looks like you are correct about the "lure" concept being used in the interpretation of the "chop block" rule. (I'm not sure if it is or isn't in the rulebook literally, but it appears from this post to definitely be part of how the rules are interpreted!)

On Sunday, the officials flagged Broncos tight end Julius Thomas for an illegal chop block on Cardinals defensive lineman Calais Campbell. But even though Campbell wasn’t engaged high by left tackle Ryan Clady when Thomas struck Campbell in the knee, the NFL believes that a chop block indeed occurred.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...al-chop-block/

Originally Posted by Mike Florio, NFL officiating expert for NBC Sports

Per a league source, the NFL regards the hit as a violation based on the two factors previously identified here: (1) a “reverse chop,” where the low hit happens first and the high hit comes “simultaneously or immediately after the block.” Likewise, the league interprets the situation as a “lure”-style chop block, with Clady confronting Campbell in a pass-blocking posture as Thomas takes out Campbell’s knees.

While the league supports the decision to throw the flag (which will mean no snooty press release from the NFL Referees Association, because God forbid an official would get called out for making a mistake), it remains to be seen whether the NFL views the contact as something worthy of a fine. If Thomas isn’t fined, it’ll be hard for Cardinals coach Bruce Arians to continue to insist that it’s the dirtiest play he has seen in 37 years of coaching.

[DanT]

I would be very surprised if the NFL levies a fine on that play. Just looking a the video provided in the topic-header, the block does not look "dirty". Perhaps NFL folks who knew more about the overall context of this game or the players involved would see it differently, though, so the NFL might surprise me and consider it a play that warrants a fine being levied.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by DanT

Thanks for the info, listopencil. It looks like you are correct about the "lure" concept being used in the interpretation of the "chop block" rule. (I'm not sure if it is or isn't in the rulebook literally, but it appears from this post to definitely be part of how the rules are interpreted!)

On Sunday, the officials flagged Broncos tight end Julius Thomas for an illegal chop block on Cardinals defensive lineman Calais Campbell. But even though Campbell wasn’t engaged high by left tackle Ryan Clady when Thomas struck Campbell in the knee, the NFL believes that a chop block indeed occurred.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...al-chop-block/

I saw a pic last night of a rule listing it but I can't remember the source. I'll try to find it again.

[listopencil]

CHOP BLOCK ON PASS (WITH “LURE”)
(3) On a forward pass play, A1 chops a defensive player while A2 confronts the defensive player in a pass-blocking posture but is not physically engaged with the defensive player (a “lure”).


http://www.nfl.com/static/content/pu...er_Conduct.pdf

[Red Dawg]

I hope Manning gets his ass hit low and gets taken out. That team does not deserve the wins they get.

Fugg them.

[DanT]

Originally Posted by listopencil

CHOP BLOCK ON PASS (WITH “LURE”)
(3) On a forward pass play, A1 chops a defensive player while A2 confronts the defensive player in a pass-blocking posture but is not physically engaged with the defensive player (a “lure”).


http://www.nfl.com/static/content/pu...er_Conduct.pdf

A-ha! Thanks for finding that term in the NFL rules! I hadn't seen it before.

I can see the NFL calling that a lure chop block, given the way the rule is written. I'd be surprised if they fine Thomas, though. The tackle was in a pose to block, that's for sure, so the rule was violated.

But did the tackle or the tight end do something "dirty"? The tackle didn't tempt the defender to engage him so that the tight end could cut him, it doesn't appear to me. Instead, it looks like to me like the defender had decided prior to the snap that he was going to stand up run at the tackle without protecting himself from one of the offensive linemen who was closest to him and was set up perfectly to deliver a blow to his legs.

[DanT]

Campbell was actually line up over the tight end. If he hadn't taken the angle he had, then the offensive tackle might not have even "lured" him. That injury is, in my opinion, the result of a legal cut block being delivered against a defender who did not use good technique to protect himself. The Cardinals coaching staff needs to do a better job of teaching playing technique and less time whining.

(The cut block, by itself, would have been legal had there not been a "lure".)

[listopencil]

No, it wasn't a dirty play it was just a dumb move by Thomas because he didn't get his blocking assignment right.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by ta900

Yes this coming from a forum fanbase that only last week had a poster proclaim one of his favorite chiefs v. patriots moments recently was taking out Tom Brady's knee.

That wasn't a dirty play. Pollard was being blocked and lunged towards Brady while being blocked. Injuries happen and Pollard's hit on Brady was legal at the time.

[Garcia Bronco]

Thomas is an awful blocker. He didn't do that on purpose, but I am enjoying the butt hurt from the faithful in this thread. Me and donkey friends are having a chuckle at your expense. Apologies.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Oh, you mean like back in the 90's when Marty put a bounty on QB's like Elway?

So, have the Chiefs ever been accused of being a dirty franchise? The answer you're looking for is "no".

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by DanT

My previous post depends on the definition of a "chop block", especially the element of simultaneous or near-simultaneous engagement. Some fans are upset with Thomas because they consider what he did a "cut block". I do not have a problem with cut blocks in general, and especially not on the line of scrimmage, unless the player being cut is engaged already with another player above the waist, which would turn the legal cut block into an illegal chop block.

this, by the rules it was a lure chopblock.

Rule 16.3 I believe.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

So, have the Chiefs ever been accused of being a dirty franchise? The answer you're looking for is "no".

During the mid 90's your team was diffenately a dirty team. Even Kimble Anders swas a dirty player on offense. But I let it go once we beat you in the playoffs and went on to win the Super Bowl.