Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn
I am not concerned with the two things you asked about, I think everyone agrees that both of those things make an eligible receiver no longer a potential blocker, why is it so hard to see there are 3 conditions that do the same thing and they are:
1. not attempting to block the defender
OR
2. moving away from the defender
OR
3. past the defender
|
Then you're only really concerned bout #1, because #2 & #3 are each very unlikely & illegal (same penalty & signal) for other reasons. Whew, at least we're over that.
Quote:
and if you read this phrase, any block other that pushing or pulling is not legal
The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to
block by pushing or pulling him
the CONTACT that is allowed is even defined!!!!
|
Why would it say, "The contact may be a block"? Isn't the essence of blocking getting in the way of someone who doesn't want to make contact w you? If "the opponent who is attempting to block" were meant to be a limitation on
both blocking & warding off, don't you see a contradiction as applied to the "a block" part of that? Why would you block an opponent who is trying to block you?
Not only that, but "by...pulling him" takes it out of the realm of legal blocking entirely. So how could that apply to the "block" part of that sentence?
It's clear to me that "a block" and "warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him" are to be construed as separate provisions. And that means they acknowledged it remained legal for an opponent to block a potential receiver who's just running a route. The warding off provision, which applies to pushing or pulling, applies to defenders seeking to disengage from a blocking opponent anywhere, which I suppose for clarif'n purposes they reiterated here.