[Roberton3]

Based on the letter of the rule, the play was pretty clearly a chop block.

But we all know that there are lots of cases where the letter of the rule diverges from the way calls are actually made.  If referees actually followed the letter of the rule, they'd call offensive holding on nearly every play, and pass interference (offensive, defensive, or both) on lots of passes. 

The same is true with chop blocks: if referees actually called them based on the way the rule is written, you'd see a lot more chop block calls.  So, unfortunately, reading the rule doesn't help at all in this case.

[Roberton3]

Based on the letter of the rule, the play was pretty clearly a chop block.

But we all know that there are lots of cases where the letter of the rule diverges from the way calls are actually made.  If referees actually followed the letter of the rule, they'd call offensive holding on nearly every play, and pass interference (offensive, defensive, or both) on lots of passes. 

The same is true with chop blocks: if referees actually called them based on the way the rule is written, you'd see a lot more chop block calls.  So, unfortunately, reading the rule doesn't help at all in this case.