The reciever is not a potential block when hes 15 yards down field running a route. It's basically the same rule as the NFL except theres no set yardage.

Bob M. and snake-eyes:
Thanks for the info. The 9-2-3d rule probably gets to what I'm mainly concerned about. I flagged several defensive backs this past season for continuing to contact the receiver when it was clear to me that the receiver was trying to run a pass route and not block. In all cases I talked to the DB after the first time I saw it, then if he kept doing it he got a flag. In one game the same DB got flagged on two consecutive plays.

In games that I've observed (some very well-coached teams in my opinion), I've seen a number of DBs using the technique of continuing to contact the receiver when the receiver is making no attempt to block. In some of those games I've also noticed that the wing official is talking to the DB after the play, most likely warning them about the contact, but that's only a guess.

kentref

Tundra ref is correct----
scoring team should have the option
of enforcing the penalty on the try
or on the following kick-off.

I would also like to see them add it so it specifically says in the rulebook that says verbage designed to confuse the defense is illegal. This way we don't have to refer to the casebook when a coach asks why the trick play is illegal.

The Federation could do us all a huge favor and give officials
a lot of lattitude in flagging those "trick plays" with 3rd or 4th
and short yardage that are obviously designed to draw the
defense into an encroachment penalty for a cheap 1st down.
We have to make a lot of judgement calls out there during a game.
Why not clearly write a rule that gives us the right to flag
ANY actions in those situations--- then back it up in the
points of emphasis, and have state associations be crystal
clear to the coaches that such "trick" plays will not be
part of the game.If I could have one wish this Christmas--
that would be it !

Just tell em you're envoking the unfair acts rule. When he says somthing award the other team 7 points. :D

I concur with the language being cleaned up some on PSK, however, be careful what you ask for. I would like to see it spelled out in the rule book that in order for a reciever to have possession, he must come down with at least one foot inbounds and have control of the football. No place in the rule book does it state a one foot requirement although that is how we all officiate it.

No, the INITIAL contact must be BELOW the waist if the player is going to cut like that. If they go high, they cannot go low.
Offensive lines are continually told that they cannot stand up like they are going to pass block and then dive down so they should not be allowed to actually block high and then cut.

You might want to read the definition of a catch in rule 2. Even tho it does not specify, the fact the player needs to be inbounds when he catches the pass makes it 1 foot. If he needed 2 then they would specify as that being the minimum requirement of being inbounds.

<i>No, the INITIAL contact must be BELOW the waist if the player is going to cut like that. If they go high, they cannot go low. </i>

That's incorrect.

If an offensive player engages a defensive player outside the FBZ, or when the zone has desintegrated, that player may engage above the waist and slide down if he so chooses. If he were to engage below the waist initially, that would be illegal. If he tries to go low, but meets the defenders hands first, it is not considered a BBLW.

I don't want to put words in the mouths of the Fed Committee, but their primary reason for the rule is safety. The danger is when a player initially goes for the legs of another player with some speed built up (e.g. outside the FBZ). If he has already engaged another player high, his sliding down doesn't give the dangerous force that a head on at-the-knees block would provide.

To recap - one can go high and slide down.

I think eventually, all BBTW will be outlawed. That seems to be the direction we're headed.

I agree with ABoselli. As long as the intial contact is high and in the front its legal to slide down.

But I do disagree that BBTW will be outlawed because it is an important aspect. It's one of the only things you can do when linebackers blitz you, cut em right in the legs, then they won't come at you again. Also important for pop pass.

-snake

Maybe they won't, but I wouldn't put it in the drawer marked "will never happen".

If those LB's didn't start on the LOS, the OL can't cut them. Just like the lead back can't cut the backer on a run up the gut. Or a D-end lined up outside the FBZ can't be cut by the TE or tackle.

I don't have a book nearby, but the only otherwise illegal block that doesn't require the blockee to be on the LOS is the BITB by an OL.

That's not true, cowboy. Once he's on the same parallel yardline, and is obviously moving away from the defender, he is no longer a potential blocker. That's also what the NCAA rule states. Even if he may again become a blocker during the down, you can't continue to contact him after he's at this point. It's illegal use of hands.

Also, ABoselli is correct about BBTW. Offensive linemen can certainly block high abd then go for the legs. The only thing that matters is initial contact.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Dec 15th, 2003 at 09:49 AM]

First, you can't cut blitzing linebackers. You can only cut defensvie linemen, defenders who are on the LOS and in the FBZ at the snap.

I agree with ABoselli. It's just a matter of time before all BBTW becomes illegal. It comes up every year in the rules meetings.

REPLY: Just remember that a defensive linebacker <u>might</u> just be on the line of scrimmage at the snap--especially if he's blitzing. That would make him fair game to a BBW as long as he's in the FBZ and all the other requirements are met. By NF definition, a defense player is on the line of scrimmage if he is within 1 yard of his LOS at the snap (see NF 2-24-3). I'm sure that's what BBR was suggesting, but I don't want anyone misunderstnding it.