John Fox explains Julius Thomas' block, defends own reputation

[Denver Native (Carol)]

John Fox defended his reputation Monday after Arizona Cardinals coach Bruce Arians characterized Julius Thomas' block as the "dirtiest play he's seen in 37 years."

Fox spoke with Arians Sunday night, and provided an explanation Monday of a play that by definition was a chop block with lure, which could result in a fine.

"I talked to (Arians) after the game. I have been doing it for 35 years, not quite 37. It's not the dirtiest play I have seen this year, let alone in 35 years," Fox said. "Not necessarily whether it was the right or wrong technique is that cut blocking is allowed in the National Football League. It's utilized by everybody in the league, but you cannot have the tackle engage in a cut block at the same time. In no way was it intentional. It's never been coached by me or anybody on my staff. In four years I believe it's the first chop blocked called in my tenure. It was a look we had not seen much of. We weren't targeting anyone."

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26673924/john-fox-explains-julius-thomas-block-defends-his

[Bronco9798]

Nothing to read here. Just crying.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

TEMPE, Ariz. -- A day after his star defensive lineman was sidelined with an MCL strain because of a chop block, Arizona Cardinals coach Bruce Arians said he believes Denver's illegal hit on Calais Campbell was deliberate.

"You'll never convince me it wasn't premeditated," Arians said Monday. "The one guy set him up."

Broncos coach John Fox denied the hit by tight end Julius Thomas, who was flagged in the third quarter for chop blocking Campbell, was intentional. Even though there's no structural damage, Campbell could miss up to three weeks.

rest - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11653909/nfl-says-chop-block-call-denver-broncos-julius-thomas-was-correct

[GEM]

Ok Arians....didn't you coach Hines Ward and weren't you a coach on the same team that had a player by the name of James Harrison?

Shut the **** up, dipshit.

You come off as a groveling cry baby. We lost and it's all Julius Thomas's fault. Cry me a river, dude. Go eat another cheeseburger.

[CrazyHorse]

The block would have been perfectly legal if Clady didn't go high. Didn't the Broncos utilize cut blocking in their zone scheme back in the day?

[Elevation inc]

I have seen far dirtier plays this year, anyone see the cheap shot on locker? Also great point GEM about Hines ward Arians had no problem with that. What pisses me off is that fox said something to him that night after the game and the doosh still went whining in the media....Sore loser....end of story.

[Joel]

The block would have been perfectly legal if Clady didn't go high. Didn't the Broncos utilize cut blocking in their zone scheme back in the day?
Yes: It's an integral part of the ZBS and we were so infamous for it fans of rival teams still rant about it a decade and a half later. Cut blocks aren't chops though, and there's no WAY that was premeditated; All Pro Clady doesn't need blocking help from a an elite receiving TE who sucks at blocking, and if they were doing it on purpose they wouldn't have been that obvious about it, or split the blocks.

I still don't think it should even be called a chop unless both are engaged simultaneously. The whole "the second blocker must wait an undefined period before engaging after the first blocker RELEASES" not only demands a difficult judgement call from blockers, but from REFS; if that play's run 100 times, does it get flagged 90? 70? 30? Does it depend on whether the defender goes down; should they all start flopping when cut? I have many issues with Foxs coaching and JTs blocking, but this isn't among them; Fox may be lax and unimaginative, but he's not DIRTY.

[spikerman]

Just as a reference here is the definition of a chop block according to the NCAA rulebook. I'd be surprised if it was different in the NFL rulebook.


A chop block is a high-low or low-high combination block by any two players against an opponent (not the ball carrier) anywhere on the field, with or without a delay between blocks; the "low" component is at the opponent's thigh or below. It is not a foul if the defensive player initiates the contact.

[Joel]

"With or without a delay between blocks"? So ANY player cut ANY time can't subsequently be blocked high by ANYONE for the REMAINDER OF THE PLAY?! The letter of that law seems a tad extreme. ;)

[spikerman]

"With or without a delay between blocks"? So ANY player cut ANY time can't subsequently be blocked high by ANYONE for the REMAINDER OF THE PLAY?! The letter of that law seems a tad extreme. ;)

No, although the rule is written that way, there are officiating philosophies and when you go much more in depth in other literature it needs to be one right after the other. I forget where I saw it, but one way I saw it described was that it had to be simultaneous or the first blocker had to have "just disengaged" from the opponent.

[GEM]

Spike, is it difficult to watch a game and not let Reffing kind of take it over? I just wonder if it makes it difficult to just enjoy?

[spikerman]

Spike, is it difficult to watch a game and not let Reffing kind of take it over? I just wonder if it makes it difficult to just enjoy?

Honestly, when it comes to other games I tend to watch them like an official. For some reason with the Broncos I can still watch it as a fan, but when a foul is called that I don't see right away I do like to go back to see if I agree with it. Of course, I tend to piss people off because if a foul is called on the Broncos, and I think it's a good call, I tend to stick up for the officials. I have to get better at knowing my audience. ha ha.

[Joel]

No, although the rule is written that way, there are officiating philosophies and when you go much more in depth in other literature it needs to be one right after the other. I forget where I saw it, but one way I saw it described was that it had to be simultaneous or the first blocker had to have "just disengaged" from the opponent.
So we're back where we started: Clady's block wasn't simultaneous, though Orange Julius had just disengaged. Again, I hate anything that requires more player AND REF judgement. A certain amount of that's unavoidable, because life is black and white, but not black OR white, and mixing black and white always makes gray. But wins and losses should be as objective as possible, and judgement calls discouraged as much as possible (despite my position on flagging injurious intent rather than acts; that's a necessary evil, IMHO.)

[spikerman]

So we're back where we started: Clady's block wasn't simultaneous, though Orange Julius had just disengaged. Again, I hate anything that requires more player AND REF judgement. A certain amount of that's unavoidable, because life is black and white, but not black OR white, and mixing black and white always makes gray. But wins and losses should be as objective as possible, and judgement calls discouraged as much as possible (despite my position on flagging injurious intent rather than acts; that's a necessary evil, IMHO.)

Many calls are judgement calls. Holding, pass interference, false start, illegal motion, etc. In a sense these are all judgement calls. There are very few black and white calls out there.

[Joel]

Many calls are judgement calls. Holding, pass interference, false start, illegal motion, etc. In a sense these are all judgement calls. There are very few black and white calls out there.
Right, it's unavoidable to some extent, but the rules shouldn't implicitly encourage it. Remember "it's a catch if he WOULD'VE come down in bounds absent the push"? This is worse, because the rule explicitly bans ANY high block for the REST OF THE PLAY once a guy's cut, which is obviously absurd and forces ya'll to overrule the rules and ask how close is TOO close to simultaneous.

It's not even necessary for the purpose of the rule; it's not like a pair of blockers can "jointly" whipsaw a guys bones and joints when only one's engaged, or the defender's not free to protect himself from high blocks (or his knees endangered by a low one) two or three seconds after he's past the cut block. What's wrong with saying, "only simultaneous" and making ya'lls life easier?

[Slick]

I don't think Clady even really "engaged" him after seeing the replay a few times. Julius cut him , then Clady put his hands up preparing to block and Cambell pretty much fell into him. It wasn't like Campbell got viciously high-lowed or anything.

[Dzone]

All these petty new rules that werent around a while back. I dont know half of them. The JT block looked totally legal to me, but what do I know. Theres a new rulebook every year and I dont have time to keep up with it.

[NightTrainLayne]

I don't think Clady even really "engaged" him after seeing the replay a few times. Julius cut him , then Clady put his hands up preparing to block and Cambell pretty much fell into him. It wasn't like Campbell got viciously high-lowed or anything.

If nothing else, it's obvious that it wasn't "coached" or intentional. If it had been intentional, Clady would have had a completely different reaction.

I understand why it's illegal, and don't really disagree with the penalty. But Arians is out of his freaking mind if he really thinks that is the dirtiest play he's seen in 37 years of coaching, and that it was intentional and coached by the staff.

[GEM]

I don't think Clady even really "engaged" him after seeing the replay a few times. Julius cut him , then Clady put his hands up preparing to block and Cambell pretty much fell into him. It wasn't like Campbell got viciously high-lowed or anything.

Julius didn't even hit the knee with initial hit, he hit the thigh.

[Joel]

All these petty new rules that werent around a while back. I dont know half of them. The JT block looked totally legal to me, but what do I know. Theres a new rulebook every year and I dont have time to keep up with it.
Well, chop blocks bans aren't new, but this is the first I've heard about two (or 1½) SEPARATE blocks being called a SINGLE chop block. But like you say, they change the Competition Committee changes the rules EVERY year, so it's hard to keep track of what they've added, removed and tweaked from season to season. The League should to special high profile press releases just to list all of them each year; gee, I wonder why it doesn't (but don't wonder MUCH.)

[Simple Jaded]

Just as a reference here is the definition of a chop block according to the NCAA rulebook. I'd be surprised if it was different in the NFL rulebook.

Speaking of that play, apparently what Clady did wrong is called is a "lure" block, Clady didn't have to be engaged with Campbell for it to bet high/low. I won't even pretend to explain it.

[Joel]

Speaking of that play, apparently what Clady did wrong is called is a "lure" block, Clady didn't have to be engaged with Campbell for it to bet high/low. I won't even pretend to explain it.
So I guess once a guy's cut he's just automatically untouchable from then on; neat. Our front seven should tap each other on the thigh at every snap so it's illegal to block ANY of them the rest of the play.

[Simple Jaded]

So I guess once a guy's cut he's just automatically untouchable from then on; neat. Our front seven should tap each other on the thigh at every snap so it's illegal to block ANY of them the rest of the play.

Even worse, if I understand it right Clady's role is what initiated the high/low, he "lured" Cambell into the cutblock.

[tomjonesrocks]

JT:
“I would never want to take away somebody’s ability to go out there and play football. That was definitely not the goal or the intention. I just want to make it clear that there was no intent to hurt anybody.”

Swearinger:
"The results are the results."

[sneakers]

lol

[Joel]

Even worse, if I understand it right Clady's role is what initiated the high/low, he "lured" Cambell into the cutblock.
At least we don't make refs judge contacts intent: We make them judge the intent of NON-contact, as well as what defenders are thinking when they respond.

I still don't know what's so hard or wrong about saying, "a player engaging another low while a third engages high (or vice versa) is a chop." Simple.

[Ziggy]

To accuse JT of intentionally blocking someone in a dirty manner is preposterous. He doesn't even KNOW how to block.

[GEM]

That's what Vic said this morning too. :laugh:

For a guy whose biggest issue is not blocking to all the sudden get this urge to go out and make a statement with an intentional injury on another player...:laugh:

[Bronco9798]

It was explained this morning on Mike and Mike that Clady was suppose to "fan out" and not make contact and JT was suppose to "chip" this dude. They basically said Clady did the wrong thing and put JT in that situation. That's how they explained it.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

To accuse JT of intentionally blocking someone in a dirty manner is preposterous. He doesn't even KNOW how to block.


That's what Vic said this morning too. :laugh:

For a guy whose biggest issue is not blocking to all the sudden get this urge to go out and make a statement with an intentional injury on another player...:laugh:


I was gonna say, "now we have video evidence of JT blocking", but I refrained. :laugh:

[BroncoJoe]

Eh. It's football. People get hurt.

Arian is an idiot.

[Northman]

I havent read every post in this thread but JT's play was not dirty nor intentional. The Cardinal coach is full of shit and really considering his own history has zero room to talk about dirty play.