The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 30, 2003, 09:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 34
R is running downfield for a pass. He looks back and sees the pass is underthrown so he starts coming back. B keeps going forward towards R (heading for a collision). He is blocking the sight of the ball BUT he is not waving his arms or anything, just keeping on the path he was originally running. He is not attempting to make a move for the ball and he is hindering R's sight of the ball. Is this DPI for face guarding??
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 30, 2003, 09:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 522
First, a polite correction--players of the team that snap the ball are designated "A" ("R" is reserved for the opponents of a team that kicks the ball). A good way to refer to the offensive player in your situation would be "eligible receiver A1."

I'm having a little bit of trouble visualizing your situation. If they are on a "collision course" and the B player does not put his arms up, it seems difficult that the B player would block the vision of the A player without making at least some contact. Assuming, however, that this situation occurs as you describe it, I am not going to have DPI without contact unless the defender is clearly making gestures to break the receiver's concentration (i.e. waving his arms in front of the receiver's face). If he is just running near him and blocks his vision I have nothing, even if he is not playing the ball. As best I can tell, there is nowhere in the Rulebook or Casebook where the term "face guarding" is used (although Casebook play 7.5.10C addresses a non-contact DPI foul).
__________________
If the play is designed to fool someone, make sure you aren't the fool.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 01, 2003, 02:01am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
7.5.10C *is* face guarding, even though the term is not used.

Still, I'm unlikely to penalize an act unless it is obviously intended to shield the vision of the receiver. Not facing the ball and running near the receiver doesn't quite meet that standard, in my opinion. Waving the arms in the face, like the case play says, would be an overt act and interference.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 01, 2003, 12:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
7.5.10C *is* face guarding, even though the term is not used.
I agree, that is face guarding, but if a B player is running along side an A player and does not turn to play the ball, but does not wave his arms, I would consider this face guarding, but would not consider it a foul.
__________________
If the play is designed to fool someone, make sure you aren't the fool.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 01, 2003, 12:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 34
face guarding

If you consider it face guarding then you have to consider it a foul....correct? If B is hindering A's sight of the ball and he is not making a move for the ball then it should be flagged, is the way I understand the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 01, 2003, 03:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Show us the rule where it says "faceguarding is a penalty". There isn't one. It describes "non-contact DPI", which wouldn't (based on my reading of the rule) include the action as you've described it. It reads to me like it requires some intent to block the vision or distract.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 01, 2003, 03:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally posted by mbcrowder
Show us the rule where it says "faceguarding is a penalty". There isn't one. It describes "non-contact DPI", which wouldn't (based on my reading of the rule) include the action as you've described it. It reads to me like it requires some intent to block the vision or distract.
I agree. I think a defensive player can "face guard" without it being considered DPI (which is why I pointed out that the phrase "face guarding" is not found in the Rule or Case Books). I also agree that to have a non-contact DPI foul, B must intentionally block A's vision (by arm waving, etc.).
__________________
If the play is designed to fool someone, make sure you aren't the fool.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 01, 2003, 06:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 34
face guarding

I am not sure of the "rule", that is why I am asking for input. I guess it's just a judgement call that can go either way.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 01, 2003, 09:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 945
I would say that face guarding would involve the intentional moving of the hands or arms to hinder the vision of the other player. Having a player's vision hindered by a head or a shoulder, even if intentional, would be a very hard sell to any coach or official. If this player were running down the field and, without making contact on the receiver, the ball hit him in the back or head then I would say that the defender made a great play without even knowing it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1