Pass Interference

[Ed Maeder]

I would like to get others take on rule
7-5-10b.
"Any player hinders an opponent's vision without making an attempt to catch, intercept or bat the ball, even though no contact was made." I was told that defending by putting your hands in the air they are not hindering the opponent's vision. I feel they must be making a play on the ball to catch, intercept or bat the ball. Am I wrong here?

[HLin NC]

The most common version of "face guarding" is when the defender is beat, the defender's back is to the passer, and the defender throws up his hands.

It is pretty obvious when you see it.

[JRutledge]

Here is a faceguarding example.

Peace

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is a faceguarding example.

Peace

I would categorize that as early contact, not playing the ball.

The classic example of face guarding is a defender sticking his hands in front of the receiver's face, preventing him from being able to see. It does not require contact for it to be pass interference.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I would categorize that as early contact, not playing the ball.

The classic example of face guarding is a defender sticking his hands in front of the receiver's face, preventing him from being able to see. It does not require contact for it to be pass interference.

There was no early contact (not sure if there was any contact while the ball was in the air. It was hard to see on the video as they did not follow the receiver and defender much, but the defender was running for several yards waving his hands. People by the field (other than the team) liked the call at the time.

I was also told that you do not have to put your hands directly in the face of the receiver either, but that you are attempting to block vision with no attempt to look at the football.

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There was no early contact (not sure if there was any contact while the ball was in the air. It was hard to see on the video as they did not follow the receiver and defender much, but the defender was running for several yards waving his hands. People by the field (other than the team) liked the call at the time.

I was also told that you do not have to put your hands directly in the face of the receiver either, but that you are attempting to block vision with no attempt to look at the football.

Peace

Waving his hands or not, the defender actually bats the ball down on that play. I'd have a hard time calling face guarding in such a circumstance.

[Big2Cat]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

Waving his hands or not, the defender actually bats the ball down on that play. I'd have a hard time calling face guarding in such a circumstance.

Can you show me the rule that says if you don't turn your head or play the ball, and your face-guarding hand is lucky enough to knock the ball away, that DPI shall not be called?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Big2Cat

Can you show me the rule that says if you don't turn your head or play the ball, and your face-guarding hand is lucky enough to knock the ball away, that DPI shall not be called?

If the player actually succeeded in batting the ball, certainly that player must have attempted to bat it, which gets him off the hook for face guarding. It doesn't say he can't use the eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head (or getting a clue from the opponent's eyes) technique.

Suppose he'd been trying to play the ball all the way. Wouldn't his hands have wound up in the same place? Then how can it be said that he disadvantaged the opponent by face guarding? If a rules provision against face guarding can prevent a player from putting hands in the position where they'd need to be to play the ball, then something is wrong.

[Big2Cat]

So no rule to support that, either. Got it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Big2Cat

So no rule to support that, either. Got it.

There is no such rule.

Peace