View Single Post
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 17, 2005, 06:32am
grantsrc grantsrc is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 618
Send a message via MSN to grantsrc
Quote:
Originally posted by Bob M.

snip: REPLY: kentref...I respectfully disagree. There is no requirement that A be actually attempting to block B before B can retaliate with a block of his own.
Bob, I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. We had this discussion on our crew last year and the other four were in agreement with you on the above statement. But I got hung up on one thing in the Federation case book. In 9.2.3 Sit A under ruling, it states "... However, if the receiver is not attempting to block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use hands in the manner described...." The term I have always heard in this situation is "A is presenting himself as a blocker." This means that A is no longer attempting to run his route and is either in a blocking position or stance, or doing some other non-pass route action trying to disrupt B, like standing in his way or trying to get in front of B. Once his is not presenting himself as a blocker, B can contact/block/push A freely. I think this way of thinking clearly separates "receiver" from "potential blocker".

Obviously the language of potential blocker is a little fuzzy, but I think B shouldn't be allowed to blantantly disrupt A's passing routes. If A is obviously trying to run past B, why should B be allowed to push/block/bump A? That goes back to advantage/disadvantage. Who's gaining the advantage in this situation? B.

With that said, I DO NOT feel that you should flag this every single time it happens. That would make for an extremely long game. I do think there needs to be a comment said to the coaches or players. And if a situation occurs where B grossly disrupts A's route, like knocking him on his backside while he is trying to run past B, then that should be flagged since A was not presenting himself as a blocker. Actually, I planned on bringing this up at our state rules meetings here soon. This subject has officials on different sides, and clarification is definitely needed.

Quote:

REPLY: Scott...I'd be glad to post it, but I don't have access to a website where I could upload it myself. And it's a little too long to post here. If anyone out there has such a site, I'd be glad to e-mail it for posting.
Bob, if you like, I have a site where it could be posted. Let me know and I can get it up for everyone.

[Edited by grantsrc on Jun 17th, 2005 at 07:36 AM]
Reply With Quote