Bump and Run

[Ed Hickland]

A recent discussion with a colleague the topic of bump and run came up.

NFHS rules, he believes a defender can bump a potential offensive receiver all the way down field. He did not believe me that a potential receiver once he is no longer a potential blocker cannot be bumped.

Does anyone have a different interpretation?

[Middleman]

I had a coach ask me the exact same question yesterday afternoon. He wanted to know about the bump, the "legal chuck," the five yard zone ...

My response was essentially the same as yours, Ed. Once the elligible receiver demonstrates that he is not a potential blocker, it is not legal to hit him.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: As long as the receiver doesn't try to "lose" the defender by moving past him, and insists on maintaining his position between the defender and runner (QB?), he's positioning himself as a potential blocker and can be bumped/chucked by the defender. Though the NF and NCAA rules are worded differently, they are roughly the same in principle.

[cowbyfan1]

in a nutshell he can be bumped "all the way down field" until the ball is thrown. DPI kicks in with the pass.. If he is not being held, clean play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
in a nutshell he can be bumped "all the way down field" until the ball is thrown. DPI kicks in with the pass.. If he is not being held, clean play.

That's not true. Once he is no longer attempting to block and is on the same yard line or beyond the defender, he cannot be contacted. While it's not DPI, it is illegal use of hands.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

That's not true. Once he is no longer attempting to block and is on the same yard line or beyond the defender, he cannot be contacted. While it's not DPI, it is illegal use of hands.

Think that is the confusion. DPI restrictions for B begin when the pass is thrown. However, contact restrictions begin for B when A is no longer an eligible blocker and that occurs once A is past the expanded neutral zone. The violation is illegal use of hands.

[mnref]

I had this same situation in a Section Final game ... coach kept yelling at his db's to hit the receivers all the way down the field. He didn't believe me on the "no longer a potential blocker" rule.

On the rating card we received he said to prove it in the rule book. So I did ...sent an email to him (in a very tactful and courteous manner of course) citing the DPI rules and the illegal use of hands rules along with case book plays.

I don't usually do this with coaches but he was so adamant he was right. Hmmmm, I wonder why I haven't heard a response back.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
However, contact restrictions begin for B when A is no longer an eligible blocker and that occurs once A is past the expanded neutral zone.

I would say that the A receiver has to do more than just move past the expanded NZ to no longer be a blocker. Rule 2-30-4 defines an offensive blocker as "a player who is blocking or in position to block by being between the potential tackler and the runner." There could certainly be a lot of debate about the section I put in italics, but I would interpret it to mean that if an eligible receiver is down field he is still a potential blocker if the QB has the ball and the reciever is between "his" defender and the QB, and once he reaches or passes the yard line of his defender then he sheds his "blocker" status and at that point he can no longer be contacted by that defender(9-2-3d). Obviously once the ball is the air DPI would apply for the B player's contact.

[Edited by PSU213 on Nov 25th, 2003 at 01:29 PM]

[BktBallRef]

I think we can all agree on one thing - Seldom if ever do you see this called, even though it should be.

[kentref]

Ed, your original interpretation is correct. Here's an example from my final varsity game this year where I flagged a defensive back for continuing to contact a receiver that was making no attempt to block him. After the play I explained to the DB that if the receiver is making no attempt to block him then he can't keep contacting him. In this case the pass was in the air so the penalty was pass interference. B's coach on the next play asked our white hat for an explanation and he didn't like it, but it pointed out that he simply didn't understand the rule. It was also obvious that (1) the kids were being coached to continually bump receivers, and (2) officials in previous games were likely not calling this a foul.

[ABoselli]

I think we can all agree on one thing - Seldom if ever do you see this called, even though it should be.

Which means it will probably be a point of emphasis next year.

[Ed Hickland]

It's in the rule book for a reason. My logic is a defender can gain an advantage on a receiver if he can block him off his route. It is not uncommon to see defender step for step with a receiver and maybe bumping each other. I am not going to call that.

It should be called when the defender gains a significant advantage such as holding the receiver or bumping the receiver such that he is unable to complete his route.

In my years as a line judge, I remember calling it once in a game where the losing team was driving for what would be the winning TD with seconds left on the clock. The defender grabbed the receiver around the waist, of course, if the QB was looking at this receiver he wasn't going to throw to him now. So it goes, the pass was thrown to a receiver farther downfield for a completion and the penalty was declined.

[dumbref]

I agree a good rule of thumb is once the receiver is even with the defender, the DB can no longer "bump" him off his route. But if the direction of the route is away from the defender (say a square-in) whether the receiver was even or not - he is no longer a potential blocker of the DB. Now a linebacker my get him, but not the DB he is running away from.