Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB
The case play is illustrating that the contact itself was legal. It was not holding, clipping, nor any other way of illegally contacting a player. The reason it was a foul was because the A1 was not a potential blocker. It doesn't matter if the hit on A1 is from the front with open hands, above the waist, it is still a foul.
|
Then why does it say "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." (my emphasis)?
Quote:
The correct phrase is "potential blocker". It may not be clear if A1 is intending on blocking B23 or running a pass route. As long as A1 potentially may end up blocking B23, then B23 can hit him. If A1 is moving away or has passed B23, A1 is not a potential blocker and cannot be contacted by B23.
Yes, all contact by B is illegal in that situation.
|
Then do you think the "situation" language is just old, dating from a time when 9.2.3 prohibited only use of hands, rather than all contact, against potential receivers who were no longer potential blockers of the opponent contacting them?
Or do you read "the opponent who is attempting to block" as applying to
both "The contact may be a block"
and "warding off the opponent...by pushing or pulling him"? I read it as applying
only to the latter, because it wraps around the phrase "the opponent who is attempting to block", while "The contact may be a block" does not.
Robert