NFL: Harewood's Block that injured Michael Brockers was illegal.

**wickedsolo** · 09-07-2012, 08:09 AM

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/r...0,464432.story

Harewood is appealing the $8,000 fine.

He wasn't penalized for the block.

According to Harbaugh (and apparently the rules) if the chop block happens at the LOS then it is legal.

**arnie_uk** · 09-07-2012, 08:31 AM

We had this discussion after the Steelers cried and the rule was if the player is engaged only the blocker next to the blocker he is engaged with can go low. Ie yanda can go low on someone birk is engaged with but oher could not as he isn't next to birk.

IIRC the center was engaged with brockers and harewood was playing LG so it was legal.

**Ravenswintitle** · 09-07-2012, 08:32 AM

do you mean legal?

I thought they were changing that rule this year but I googled it and don't see anything. Bad memory?

**JAB1985** · 09-07-2012, 08:33 AM

for a league worried about safety, that sure does seem counter productive to allow them.

**wickedsolo** · 09-07-2012, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

for a league worried about safety, that sure does seem counter productive to allow them.

It does, but like arnie pointed out, there was a debate over this I believe last year and the rule book allows for it on the LOS.

It isn't safe and frankly, I think going low shouldn't be allowed really at all unless the guy is right in front of you and you're trying to get him on the ground.

**Ravens44** · 09-07-2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

It does, but like arnie pointed out, there was a debate over this I believe last year and the rule book allows for it on the LOS.

It isn't safe and frankly, I think going low shouldn't be allowed really at all unless the guy is right in front of you and you're trying to get him on the ground.

I fully get when a player is already engaged and then there is a low hit by another.

But during the game blocking low to take a guy down (not injure) has been a huge part of the game since it was created.
Soon, you can't hit the guy in the head, and you can't hit the guy low...what the heck are they playing?

We know the obvious cheap shots and the avoidable hits, but with the speed of the game, there is no way to stop all of this without it changing the game.
Players end up on the ground all the time, part of the game. If an offensive player is getting up and here comes a defender, you find any way you can to get your body in front to block him and that maybe low.
As long as it is in the front, it should be fine.
Believe me, I know what it feels like to get cartwheeled in that exact scenario. But it is part of the game.

**Baltimoreboy** · 09-07-2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

do you mean legal?

I thought they were changing that rule this year but I googled it and don't see anything. Bad memory?

I think they added the defensive players to the defenseless player rule,saying you can't hit them in the head or neck area?

**Mad Puppy** · 09-07-2012, 02:48 PM

Guys, That was a cheap shot no doubt about it. Harewood rolled on the back of Brockers legs.
Please stop trying to defend a cheap shot. Harewood should pay the fine and be glad he didn't end a career or send someone to the IR.

You same people would be screaming bloody murder had Ray Lewis or H. Ngata received the same block (I know I would be)

**bacchys** · 09-07-2012, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ravens44

But during the game blocking low to take a guy down (not injure) has been a huge part of the game since it was created. Soon, you can't hit the guy in the head, and you can't hit the guy low...what the heck are they playing?

At the rate they're going, they're going to have to start allowing holding just so it's possible to block somebody.

On the other side of the ball, if they keep tweaking the rules to favour the passing game football scores will soon rival basketball's.

**LukeDaniel** · 09-07-2012, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Mad Puppy

Guys, That was a cheap shot no doubt about it.

I'm sorry, but this just isn't factually correct.

**arnie_uk** · 09-07-2012, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Mad Puppy

Guys, That was a cheap shot no doubt about it. Harewood rolled on the back of Brockers legs.
Please stop trying to defend a cheap shot. Harewood should pay the fine and be glad he didn't end a career or send someone to the IR.

You same people would be screaming bloody murder had Ray Lewis or H. Ngata received the same block (I know I would be)

Totally incorrect, it was perfectly legal, personally I think if someone's engaged you shouldn't be allowed to, whether your the blocker next to him or not, but that's another discussion. Per the rule book, as hardwood was lg and brokers was engaged to the centre, the cut block was legal. A tackle could not have done it as they are a spot over not next to the centre an I'm sure he was in a lg and not lt for that play, so perfectly legal by the rule book.

**Mad Puppy** · 09-08-2012, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by arnie_uk

Totally incorrect, it was perfectly legal, personally I think if someone's engaged you shouldn't be allowed to, whether your the blocker next to him or not, but that's another discussion. Per the rule book, as hardwood was lg and brokers was engaged to the centre, the cut block was legal. A tackle could not have done it as they are a spot over not next to the centre an I'm sure he was in a lg and not lt for that play, so perfectly legal by the rule book.

Stop trying to defend it. Don't be a rules lawyer, and try to justify it with some creative imagining of reality. Again if one of the Ravens received said block this board would be blowing up with rage. Especially if Ngata had a high ankle sprain because of it.
It was a cheap shot.