|
My - Hasn’t this become a feisty post! I suppose I started using the term “cut off” – if that caused confusion to the OP, I apologize. My intension was to describe B’s stop as the (possible) action that caused the “contact on an eligible receiver” (non-potential blocker) as in 9-2-3d.
Even with the foul by B, it does not eliminate A’s restriction to block under the same provision and 7-5-8a. As stated in an earlier post, I will allow A some leeway to avoid or get away from the contact. But it can not include A simply “pushing B to the ground”.
I agree with JRutledge, I’d prefer to call one or the other. But I can also visualize fouls by both players in this situation, resulting in a double foul. I do not mean to imply it should always be a double foul – only that it is a possibility as described in the OP.
__________________
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
|