If you freeze the :55 frame (actually at about :55.5), the Oregon blocker’s helmet is clearly positioned behind the OSU players left shoulder and helmet. Based on the way the OSU guy’s head comes forward, it even looks like the Oregon blocker’s helmet contacted the OSU players helmet from behind.

The blocks directly behind the block in question…yes, those are legit blocks from the side, with the blockers’ helmets in front off or even with each defender’s left shoulder.

How do you want to definite it….

In my opinoin, the contact was made from the side. The problem with viewing it as you describe, is that it views the player as simply a front and back. But there’s a front, back, and 2 sides, essentially 4 zones of contact..

I have heard Bellotti talk about this very play, and said that contact was not made on the back panel of the padding, and thus, it’s not a penalty. Now, he may have just been saying that because he didn’t want to admit a penalty, but I’ve also heard him be honest about getting lucky calls. So whatever. But that makes total sense to me, and seems to be a very simple way of determining on the field if it’s a penalty or not. Otherwise, you start arguing about the exact positions of helmets and all sorts of other crap on legal blocks.

It took me like… ten minutes.

I think beavers have at least a legitmate reason to think it’s a block in the back.

But when interpreting rules, it’s important to know WHY they made the rule. Getting hit in the back is a very dangerous thing. More so than it being an “unfair” practice that needs the playing field to be level (Like holding, or off sides). Getting hit in the back of the arm, isn’t any more dangerous than getting tackled from the front, or being “Warded”.

When i watch that video, and watching how the momentum of the attempted tackler after the block… I’m observing that, with no rotational factor in his fall, the front of his right arm is what is going to make contact with the ground first. The point of initial inertia is going to be the polar opposite side of the location of where the ground first makes contact. This leaves the back of his right shoulder/arm area. I believe the observation from the initial clip, prior to the replay, supports this data.

I’m not going to change your mind. You’re not going to change mine. In the end it wasn’t called, so it wasn’t a penalty. You think they got it right. I think they got it wrong. It’s not like I was bummed that we scored a touchdown.

In addition…
Initially, when I first saw it, I thought, “Nah. Not a block in the back.”
Then I watched it again and thought, “Actually… that was.” ergo, my previous men in black reference.
But after watching it closer, and knowing I’ve seen blocks happen on the backside the arm, albeit at a better, unquestionable angle, I think I have enough data to have an “mostly” objective opinion on it.

I would say, that like anything else, there is the rulebook, and how that rule is interpreted, much like the law is interpreted by the courts. Just because a rule doesn’t specifically say sides, doesn’t mean that isn’t inferred.

There are two ways to read the rule: 1) There is a front and back. 2) There is a back, that is directly behind the player.

From what I’ve heard from coach Bellotti and how I’ve seen the game officiated, number 2 is how the rule is interpreted, for ease of enforcement (it’s very easy to tell if someone gets blocked in the back panel of the pads), and because it still provides the safety required.

As far as a Beaver fan thinking they got jobbed, if this type of called happened to us, it’d obviously be very close, but I think that players should be allowed to block on the shoulder area, which this was.

That’s exactly what I was doing. Besides, that game, what did we really have to talk about? We sucked that year.

The only time we’ve been ranked #1 in football…. F you Fresno State