Expanded neutral zone

[Nyjets]

We had a meeting the other night and the expanded neutral zone was being discussed. We know an ineligible receiver is awarded the expanded neutral zone if he contacts a B lineman and the contact doesn't continue beyond the expanded neutral zone (up to 2 yards). Now, the question is, if one of the five interior lineman is blocking and has the neutral zone has expanded for him, does it also expand for all the other ineligible receivers who aren't in contact with a B lineman? In other words, if it expands for one, does it expand for all whether or not they are in contact with a defensive lineman?

[Warrenkicker]

I have always ruled on it this way. You only get the expanded neutral zone if you are blocking a B player. If you are not currently blocking a B player then you'd better be behind the NZ.

The rules book could use some clearer language on this topic.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Nyjets
We had a meeting the other night and the expanded neutral zone was being discussed. We know an ineligible receiver is awarded the expanded neutral zone if he contacts a B lineman and the contact doesn't continue beyond the expanded neutral zone (up to 2 yards). Now, the question is, if one of the five interior lineman is blocking and has the neutral zone has expanded for him, does it also expand for all the other ineligible receivers who aren't in contact with a B lineman? In other words, if it expands for one, does it expand for all whether or not they are in contact with a defensive lineman?

7-5-12 says "An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, HE immediately contacts a B lineman and the contact does not continue beyond the ENZ. The HE is the key, indicating this only applies to the particular linemen who meets this requirement, not to all linemen once any linemen has met the requirement.

[Nyjets]

We have been told that the NFHS rule interpretation of the expanded neutral zone is that if the neutral zone is expanded for one ineligible, then it is expanded for all the ineligibles, whether or not they are in contact with a B lineman. I personally don't agree with this interpretation. Has anyone else interpreted this rule this way? I personally feel you have to be in contact with a B lineman to get the 2 yard belt.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by Nyjets
We have been told that the NFHS rule interpretation of the expanded neutral zone is that if the neutral zone is expanded for one ineligible, then it is expanded for all the ineligibles, whether or not they are in contact with a B lineman. I personally don't agree with this interpretation. Has anyone else interpreted this rule this way? I personally feel you have to be in contact with a B lineman to get the 2 yard belt.

REPLY: In my opinion, someone isn't accurately relating the NFHS's interpretation. I agree with you. I believe your association's interpretation re: the expanded neutral zone on forward passes beyond the neutral zone is incorrect. The neutral zone is expanded only for ineligibles who contact a B lineman and drive him no more than 2 yards off the defensive LOS. All other ineligibles are restricted by their LOS.

[ljudge]

The verbage makes sense here and I would have got this wrong on a test question, until now. My question is if an A player who is 4 stinking feet beyond the LOS and never hit a team B player, are you going to rag him for being illegally downfield? It's not like he really gained any kind of advantage especially if he's supposed to be behind the LOS blocking for his QB. If he touches a pass or some how draws coverage I agree it should (and has) to be flagged. So with that as a backdrop I ask are we going to be that strict if he really hasn't gained an advantage?

[MJT]

Originally posted by ljudge
The verbage makes sense here and I would have got this wrong on a test question, until now. My question is if an A player who is 4 stinking feet beyond the LOS and never hit a team B player, are you going to rag him for being illegally downfield? It's not like he really gained any kind of advantage especially if he's supposed to be behind the LOS blocking for his QB. If he touches a pass or some how draws coverage I agree it should (and has) to be flagged. So with that as a backdrop I ask are we going to be that strict if he really hasn't gained an advantage?

IMO you might use some good preventative officiating the first time you see it by saying something like "guys, a couple of you are pretty close to being illegally downfield." This notifies them, and you can easily bang them, with no complaining if it happens again. It is no different than telling the lineman to "keep their hands inside" or they are going to get a holding call against them.

Now if a lineman is 3 yards or more downfield, we've got a flag with no warning.

[Jim S]

Originally posted by ljudge
The verbage makes sense here and I would have got this wrong on a test question, until now. My question is if an A player who is 4 stinking feet beyond the LOS and never hit a team B player, are you going to rag him for being illegally downfield? It's not like he really gained any kind of advantage especially if he's supposed to be behind the LOS blocking for his QB. If he touches a pass or some how draws coverage I agree it should (and has) to be flagged. So with that as a backdrop I ask are we going to be that strict if he really hasn't gained an advantage?

I have to disagree with ljudge here. There is an advantage gained.
Go to the reason for the rule. It's to allow blocking on defensive players without restricting the lineman to wait for the defenders to come to them, NOT to allow players to start downfield.
If a defensive player sees that an offensive lineman has gone beyond the LOS and is not blocking, or at least attempting to block, then the defensive player may logically assume that either 1. the play is a running play, or 2. the offensive player will be charged with a foul.
Allowing players beyond the LOS who are not blocking may very definately affect the play. And you have no way to know when, or if, that happens...... except for maybe the yelling by the defense who saw the offending lineman and called off their pass coverage.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by Jim S

I have to disagree with ljudge here. There is an advantage gained.
Go to the reason for the rule. It's to allow blocking on defensive players without restricting the lineman to wait for the defenders to come to them, NOT to allow players to start downfield.
If a defensive player sees that an offensive lineman has gone beyond the LOS and is not blocking, or at least attempting to block, then the defensive player may logically assume that either 1. the play is a running play, or 2. the offensive player will be charged with a foul.
Allowing players beyond the LOS who are not blocking may very definately affect the play. And you have no way to know when, or if, that happens...... except for maybe the yelling by the defense who saw the offending lineman and called off their pass coverage.

I have to agree with Jim, judging adv/disadv is too hard in this case.