"Illegal crackback block on a defenseless player, with targeting."

[sarktastic]

You suck at this. Grow the hell up and learn the difference between a blindside block and a crack-back block. Here's the NFL definition of a blindside block that is used by NCAA officials because the NCAA was too stupid to copy/paste this shit into their rules: A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side. Chest was wrong. The fans don't know shit about the rules and we need Mike Pereira to explain this shit to you guys: http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/video/pereira-explaining-blind-side-blocks-100514?vid=338078787834

Which part, exactly, do I suck at? Quoting the exact words used by the mic'd head referee on the field at the time he made the call? Or block quoting from an article defining "crackback" blocks, "defenseless" players, and "targeting?"

My point, in this post and others, is that it was an utterly indefensible call. Nothing about Perkins's play satisfies the definitions of any of the terminology used by the ref who made the call on the field.

That's a blindside block, not a crackback block.

If the ref said crackback, fire his ass on the 50 yard line.

We all know it's a bad call.

How can a blindside block be called when the player prior to being blocked looks up at the guy moving in to block him, only to turn his attention back to the ball carrier before impact?

If this is a true interpretation of the rule, doesn't every inside counter run now by this definition, contain a blindside block?

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

Let me clarify:
It would have been a blindside block had it met the criteria for a blindside block. It was nothing resembling a crack back block.

Blindside blocks require the blocker to be moving toward his own goal line (against the grain of the play if you will). That clearly wasn't happening with the Perkins play.

For sarkastic: One of the criteria for a blindside block is that the blocker comes at the opponent from the side or from behind (BRB, JO). It should never be called a blindside block in this scenario because the block is coming from the front of the blockee.

Clear as mud?

 

[RaceBannon]

Let me clarify:
It would have been a blindside block had it met the criteria for a blindside block. It was nothing resembling a crack back block.

Blindside blocks require the blocker to be moving toward his own goal line (against the grain of the play if you will). That clearly wasn't happening with the Perkins play.

For sarkastic: One of the criteria for a blindside block is that the blocker comes at the opponent from the side or from behind (BRB, JO). It should never be called a blindside block in this scenario because the block is coming from the front of the blockee.

Clear as mud?

What is clear is that the only people on earth that you don't think suck or are epic dreckfest beings are officials.

I'm surprised people are surprised by that

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

Let me clarify:
It would have been a blindside block had it met the criteria for a blindside block. It was nothing resembling a crack back block.

Blindside blocks require the blocker to be moving toward his own goal line (against the grain of the play if you will). That clearly wasn't happening with the Perkins play.

For sarkastic: One of the criteria for a blindside block is that the blocker comes at the opponent from the side or from behind (BRB, JO). It should never be called a blindside block in this scenario because the block is coming from the front of the blockee.

Clear as mud?

What is clear is that the only people on earth that you don't think suck or are epic dreckfest beings are officials.

I'm surprised people are surprised by that

I think a few members of the onfield crew should be missing a game or two for fucking that call up. I think the replay officials for that game should be DONE. Not warned, just DONE.

Corrente actually wanted the ability to fix this shit but the teams got in the way, if Pereira's story is true.

 

[TTJ]

Constructive criticism for Jim Blackwood:

 

[FremontTroll]

Horseshit call

I don't get it I guess. The guy was coming after Ross. No helmet leading, no crack back, no blind side. Hit him square in the shoulders. The guy was leveled on a clean block.

A bunch of people are missing the meaning of a blind side block.

Blind side refers to the position on the field in relation to which way the play is moving. Not which way the player is facing.

He is a defenseless player by rule. The only discretionary issue is whether Perkins targeted him. Its a weak call because he used his shoulder and he was barely moving before initiating the block. But what the ref must have looked at is that he left his feet on the follow through.

The ref should watch some hockey games. There is a huge difference between launching yourself through the air and powering up and through a hit such that you leave the ground on the follow through. One should be ejectable and the other shouldn't.

 

[sarktastic]

You're missing the fact the pussy player saw what was coming but turned his vision back toward making the tackle.

It was a bullshit call and wasn't overturned by the P-12 office ONLY due to the fact Scott is in the middle of a fire storm right now for not supporting his refs.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

Horseshit call

I don't get it I guess. The guy was coming after Ross. No helmet leading, no crack back, no blind side. Hit him square in the shoulders. The guy was leveled on a clean block.

A bunch of people are missing the meaning of a blind side block.

Blind side refers to the position on the field in relation to which way the play is moving. Not which way the player is facing.

He is a defenseless player by rule. The only discretionary issue is whether Perkins targeted him. Its a weak call because he used his shoulder and he was barely moving before initiating the block. But what the ref must have looked at is that he left his feet on the follow through.

The ref should watch some hockey games. There is a huge difference between launching yourself through the air and powering up and through a hit such that you leave the ground on the follow through. One should be ejectable and the other shouldn't.

He's not a defenseless player. He was blocked from in front by a player moving forward.

Hope this helps.

 

[TTJ]

A bunch of people are missing the meaning of a blind side block.

Blind side refers to the position on the field in relation to which way the play is moving. Not which way the player is facing.

He is a defenseless player by rule. The only discretionary issue is whether Perkins targeted him. Its a weak call because he used his shoulder and he was barely moving before initiating the block. But what the ref must have looked at is that he left his feet on the follow through.

Actually, by rule, this play involves neither (1) a blindside block, nor (2) a defenseless player, nor (3) targeting. Oh for three ain't bad; you should play first base for the Mariners.

 

[whatshouldicareabout]

He's not a defenseless player. He was blocked from in front by a player moving forward.

Hope this helps.

This.

 

[FremontTroll]

Horseshit call

I don't get it I guess. The guy was coming after Ross. No helmet leading, no crack back, no blind side. Hit him square in the shoulders. The guy was leveled on a clean block.

A bunch of people are missing the meaning of a blind side block.

Blind side refers to the position on the field in relation to which way the play is moving. Not which way the player is facing.

He is a defenseless player by rule. The only discretionary issue is whether Perkins targeted him. Its a weak call because he used his shoulder and he was barely moving before initiating the block. But what the ref must have looked at is that he left his feet on the follow through.

The ref should watch some hockey games. There is a huge difference between launching yourself through the air and powering up and through a hit such that you leave the ground on the follow through. One should be ejectable and the other shouldn't.

He's not a defenseless player. He was blocked from in front by a player moving forward.

Hope this helps.

I didn't write the rule.

He is defenseless by rule because of Perkins moving parallel to his goal line and approaching from the defenders side. Doesn't matter that he turned and got hit in the chest.

The issue is whether he was targeted. I already explained he was not targeted and that is why it was a bad call.

Hope this helps.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

Horseshit call

I don't get it I guess. The guy was coming after Ross. No helmet leading, no crack back, no blind side. Hit him square in the shoulders. The guy was leveled on a clean block.

A bunch of people are missing the meaning of a blind side block.

Blind side refers to the position on the field in relation to which way the play is moving. Not which way the player is facing.

He is a defenseless player by rule. The only discretionary issue is whether Perkins targeted him. Its a weak call because he used his shoulder and he was barely moving before initiating the block. But what the ref must have looked at is that he left his feet on the follow through.

The ref should watch some hockey games. There is a huge difference between launching yourself through the air and powering up and through a hit such that you leave the ground on the follow through. One should be ejectable and the other shouldn't.

He's not a defenseless player. He was blocked from in front by a player moving forward.

Hope this helps.

I didn't write the rule.

He is defenseless by rule because of Perkins moving parallel to his goal line and approaching from the defenders side. Doesn't matter that he turned and got hit in the chest.

The issue is whether he was targeted. I already explained he was not targeted and that is why it was a bad call.

Hope this helps.

1. You have be moving toward your own goal line.
2. Perkins was moving toward Cal's goal line.
3. He approached from the front. The Cal guy turned his head like a bitch, but his torso was still facing Perkins.