[mikesears]

I think we should break this down completely by rule. Here is my attempt at doing so.

Key Rules:

Rule 2-3-1: Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body.

This would include the hand to the helmet.

Rule 2-3-2: In blocking, a player may contact opponents with the arms or hands provided the technique is legal. The legal techniques are:

2-3-2-b: Open hand technique. The hand(s) shall be

(3) Inside the frame of the opponent’s body, except when the opponent turns his back to the blocker during the block or after the blocker is committed to his charge. The frame of the opponent’s body is at the shoulders or below other than the back.

A hand on top of the helmet immediately after the snap is not inside the frame as defined by rule but we've got to read further for an opponent who ducks or squats.

(4) (The hand(s) shall be at or below the shoulders of the blocker and the opponent, except when the opponent squats, ducks or submarines during the block or after the blocker is committed to his charge.

In the game in question, I envision that the defense was lining up directly over the offense and then pushing the offensive players' heads down toward the ground after the snap before the offense could rise to block.

Does a player meet the definition of squatting, ducking, or submarining if he lines up in a 3-point stance? My contention is that he can't be be ducking, squatting or submarining if he is trying to come up after the snap. I believe the spirit of this rule is to avoid penalizing players who accidentally put a hand on a helmet when a player ducks. I don't believe it is there to protect a player who does this deliberately. If the offensive player stays down or goes down further after the snap, then, I'm confident the action is legal.


9-2-3a: A defensive player shall not use a technique which is not permissable by rule (2-3-2,4).


Then I got to the casebook and they have a ruling that almost seems contradictory to the rulebook.

As the offensive linemen charge on the snap of the ball, B1: (a) grasps guard A1 by the jersey and controls him until he sees where the ball is going; or (b) slaps A1 on the side of the helmet with an open hand and forces his head to the side with what is commonly called the “bell ringer;” or (c) contacts A1 with one hand on his shoulder pad and the other hand on his helmet in fighting off the block; or (d) pulls A1’s shoulders to one side and charges through in an effort to get to the runner; or (e) pulls A1’s shoulders to one side so B2 may charge through to the runner.

Ruling:
It is holding in (a), which will result in a 10-yard penalty administered in accordance with the all-but-one principle, if accepted. In (b), it is illegal personal contact, and (e), it is illegal use of hands by B1, which also carries a 10-yard penalty. The action by B1 in (c) and (d) is legal.


Can someone explain what seems like a contradiction?