Again, that's not right

I appreciate the "reason for the rule" thought, but the actual rule is the point of contact. LT doesn't hit him with his head in the back.

And I appreciate the "back of the shoulder" nonsense too.

LT's shoulder hit Joe under his shoulder and knocked him sideways. He didn't hit his back at any point. That was the letter of the rule. You know it, I know it. I appreciate all of you trying to apply nuance, or interpretation, but the rule is now, and was clear, you have to hit someone in the back to get a clipping call back then, or illegal block in the back.

The side, has never been the back.

I am wrong quite a bit, but not on this one.

Like I said, you guys can't actually indicate where LT hit Joe in the back, because he didn't. You know it, I know it, the pictures show it pretty damn clearly. LT's arm is in front and his arm/shoulder was the point of contact. Not his head.

And I hit plenty of people in the chest/side who didn't see it coming. We even had plays designed that way (we had an option reverse that required it). But there are plenty of blocks on LBs with counters, in the side, and they don't see it coming. There are plenty of crack back blocks where they don't see it coming (Crackbacks only recently became against the rules in the NFL).

The rule has always required actual contact with the back (not the side). That was the case when both of us played, it was the case when I officiated kids. It was pretty clear that the side isn't the back, and the key for all of these rules has been the point of contact. Always. LT hit Joe on the side, it's crystal clear. He hit him with his shoulder, under Joe's shoulder. That was not clipping and it's not a block in the back.