Thread: John Fox explains Julius Thomas' block, defends own reputation

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...ck-defends-his

Nothing to read here. Just crying.

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/11...as-was-correct

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

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.

"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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by spikerman

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.)

Originally Posted by Joel

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.

Originally Posted by spikerman

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?