Face Guarding or not??

[shocker]

R is running downfield for a pass. He looks back and sees the pass is underthrown so he starts coming back. B keeps going forward towards R (heading for a collision). He is blocking the sight of the ball BUT he is not waving his arms or anything, just keeping on the path he was originally running. He is not attempting to make a move for the ball and he is hindering R's sight of the ball. Is this DPI for face guarding??

[PSU213]

First, a polite correction--players of the team that snap the ball are designated "A" ("R" is reserved for the opponents of a team that kicks the ball). A good way to refer to the offensive player in your situation would be "eligible receiver A1."

I'm having a little bit of trouble visualizing your situation. If they are on a "collision course" and the B player does not put his arms up, it seems difficult that the B player would block the vision of the A player without making at least some contact. Assuming, however, that this situation occurs as you describe it, I am not going to have DPI without contact unless the defender is clearly making gestures to break the receiver's concentration (i.e. waving his arms in front of the receiver's face). If he is just running near him and blocks his vision I have nothing, even if he is not playing the ball. As best I can tell, there is nowhere in the Rulebook or Casebook where the term "face guarding" is used (although Casebook play 7.5.10C addresses a non-contact DPI foul).

[Rich]

7.5.10C *is* face guarding, even though the term is not used.

Still, I'm unlikely to penalize an act unless it is obviously intended to shield the vision of the receiver. Not facing the ball and running near the receiver doesn't quite meet that standard, in my opinion. Waving the arms in the face, like the case play says, would be an overt act and interference.

Rich

[PSU213]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
7.5.10C *is* face guarding, even though the term is not used.

I agree, that is face guarding, but if a B player is running along side an A player and does not turn to play the ball, but does not wave his arms, I would consider this face guarding, but would not consider it a foul.

[shocker]

If you consider it face guarding then you have to consider it a foul....correct? If B is hindering A's sight of the ball and he is not making a move for the ball then it should be flagged, is the way I understand the rule.

[MD Longhorn]

Show us the rule where it says "faceguarding is a penalty". There isn't one. It describes "non-contact DPI", which wouldn't (based on my reading of the rule) include the action as you've described it. It reads to me like it requires some intent to block the vision or distract.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by mbcrowder
Show us the rule where it says "faceguarding is a penalty". There isn't one. It describes "non-contact DPI", which wouldn't (based on my reading of the rule) include the action as you've described it. It reads to me like it requires some intent to block the vision or distract.

I agree. I think a defensive player can "face guard" without it being considered DPI (which is why I pointed out that the phrase "face guarding" is not found in the Rule or Case Books). I also agree that to have a non-contact DPI foul, B must intentionally block A's vision (by arm waving, etc.).

[shocker]

I am not sure of the "rule", that is why I am asking for input. I guess it's just a judgement call that can go either way.

[Warrenkicker]

I would say that face guarding would involve the intentional moving of the hands or arms to hinder the vision of the other player. Having a player's vision hindered by a head or a shoulder, even if intentional, would be a very hard sell to any coach or official. If this player were running down the field and, without making contact on the receiver, the ball hit him in the back or head then I would say that the defender made a great play without even knowing it.