Pass interference - change in NFHS rule

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by chiefgil
Do we still call PI on an abvious "pick-play" on the LBs or CBs?

REPLY: Absolutely! The discussion was centered on defensive actions. OPI criteria hasn't really changed.

[PSU213]

Here are my two thoughts on this:

First, it was talked about holding "obviously away from the direction of the (eventual) pass." Perhaps the pass was going to be thrown to that receiver, and the QB switched to the receiver on the oppsite side of the field because the first receiver was held. Even though the hold was quite far away from the direction of the eventual pass, a potential advantage was gained, and I think this hold would have to be called.

Also, on a potential DPI on the other side of the field from a pass--we can argue about whether this should be covered under PI rules or not considered a foul (as per the rule change), but if this is so far away from the play, it is unlikely that any official will be focusing on the play on the opposite side of the field. Not that the offical over there will not have some idea of what's happening, I don't think he would be watching closely enough, under most circumstances, to call a foul.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by kdf5

How far away is "obviously"? Say there's a busted route and two recievers, A1 & A2 end up in the same area. The pass goes to A1 but B1 shoves A2 during the pass. Say they are 5 yards apart, 10 yards apart or 15 yards apart. Is this a situation where you know it when you see it or have your assoc's given any sort of rule of thumb?

REPLY: "Obviously" in my mind is intended to say that the shove/push wouldn't have an immediate material effect on the play. In your example, if B1 shoves A2 (ball in the air) who's only 5 or ten yards away from the pass, what happens if the pass is tipped and now A2 has been disadvantaged so that he doesn't have the opportunity to go for the ball. To me, you should have called PI in that case.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by chiefgil
Do we still call PI on an abvious "pick-play" on the LBs or CBs?

As I understand the rule revision it only affects the defense. Maybe someone else has a different interpretation.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Ed…It seems like we agree on a pretty good number of things here. In fact, I believe that any disagreement we might have is based upon how each of us interprets what ‘no longer a potential blocker’ means. For this discussion, I’m talking only about contact initiated by the defense and (b) the contact is prior to the pass being in flight. Let’s review:

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
Downfield contact by the offense is prohibited if a forward pass is thrown beyond the line of scrimmage (NF Table 7-5 2.b, 7-5-8a). Remember, the offense knows or should know if a pass is imminent. An offensive receiver can block if a pass is thrown that does not cross the LOS or the play is a run. A defender does not know whether a pass is imminent

Agree with everything you say here. That’s basic PI stuff. We were talking about defensive contact before the pass is in flight. So PI is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
A defender cannot perform pass interference until the ball is in the air (NF 7-5-8b); however, that does not allow a defender to block an opponent. Illegal use of the hands or holding is prohibited on an eligible receiver, in fact, the exact wording is to "...hook, clamp, grasp, encircle or hold in an effort to restrain an opponent other than the runner" (NF 9-2-3c). The word "bump" is not used nor should it be.

I agree here as well. However, a block by the defender in the front, within the frame of the body, above the waist is neither illegal use of the hands nor holding. The only way a ‘block’ by the defense can be interpreted as illegal use of the hands is if it is contact against an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker. I think that our only point of disagreement is in how conservative or liberal we choose to be in determining when an eligible receiver is no longer a potential blocker. Personally, I will consider an eligible a potential blocker until he is on the same yardline or past the defender or has clearly turned to move away from the defender. In such cases, contact by the defender can almost never be according to the techniques described in NF 2-3-2 and therefore will probably deserve a flag.

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
I will agree with an earlier statement that calling holding on a receiver away from the ball while it is in the air should not be done because it violates the principle of advantage...no advantage will be gained.

…Agreed. However, if the hold occurred before the pass is in flight the hold might have caused the QB to turn to an alternate receiver. It very well could have affected the play even though the ball is eventually thrown to the other side of the field. You gotta see it…

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
It is impossible to illustrate the difference between holding and bumping in this forum. But let me attempt to describe where this might apply. A potential receiver and a defender running stride for stride jostling for position. Their bodies constantly making momentary contact until the defender uses his elbow by pushing it away from his body such that it disrupts the movement of his opponent. Is it a bump? Yes, it is. Is it illegal?

I don’t think so, but that’s me. As long as they’re running stride for stride, I’m going to give the defender some leeway. From my experiences in HS and some college ball, calling this too conservatively will result in a flag-fest that neither team wants.

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
According to NF 9-2-3d this would be contact on an eligible receiver who is no longer a blocker. The preliminary contact is incidental. The rules makers and interpreters recognize there will be contact. It is only the contact that gains an advantage that should be penalized.

As for Case Book 9.2.3a it requires a careful read as it only offers limited proof of 2-3-5a and 7-5-7 and through a back door substantiates that a defender cannot block downfield.

7-5-7 shouldn’t be an issue, since we’re not talking about any contact that might be considered PI.

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
Lastly, here is a real play where I did call holding. Team A is down by 5 points with less than 30 seconds remaining on the clock. A1 comes to my side and makes a cut inside. B1 grabs his jersey to keep him from getting away. Meanwhile, further downfield A2 makes a leaping catch that sets up the eventual winning TD. I flagged B1 for holding.

I had no idea whether A1 was the primary or secondary receiver. The restraint by B1 kept A1 from running his pattern and no doubt the QB looking downfield seeing that action had to go to another receiver. B1's hold gained an advantage. Of course, the penalty was declined since B2 made the catch.

Bravo…I would have called it too for exactly the same reasons you mentioned. And I’m sure you meant that A2 made the catch.

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
My point here is a downfield hold can determine what action a QB takes when looking for receivers. To not penalize a downfield hold by a defender gives an advantage to the defense.

Ed…did you read the article I wrote for last Fall’s edition of the NF Officials’ Quarterly? It deals with exactly this subject matter.

[kentref]

Originally posted by Ed Hickland

These are tough calls because often they do not appear on the camera, especially, the illegal use of the hands. I think anytime a defender disrupts a route of a receiver there is an advantage gained because it takes away one possible choice of the QB, primary or secondary receiver, it does not matter. [/B]

Ed - I couldn't agree more. I've flagged a number of defenders for this and more times than not, the B coaches are livid because they seem to think that they only need "hands off" when the pass is in the air.

[ScottV]

Ed…did you read the article I wrote for last Fall’s edition of the NF Officials’ Quarterly? It deals with exactly this subject matter.

Bob, can you post the article here as well.

I agree that the bumping restiction is only in the NFL. Fed and NCAA B can bump or legally block potental blocker A until the ball is in the air.

[kentref]

Originally posted by ScottV


I agree that the bumping restiction is only in the NFL. Fed and NCAA B can bump or legally block potental blocker A until the ball is in the air. [/B]

I agree about B being able to bump or legally block A's "potential blocker." However, I'm looking at situations where the A eligible receiver is trying to run a pass route and making no attempt to block B. The little grabs, hand checking, and other efforts by B to disrupt the pass route of A, should be penalized if there is no attempt by A to block B. I'm not talking about some minor "bumping" but rather some obvious efforts by B to disrupt A's pass route.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by kentref

I agree about B being able to bump or legally block A's "potential blocker." However, I'm looking at situations where the A eligible receiver is trying to run a pass route and making no attempt to block B. The little grabs, hand checking, and other efforts by B to disrupt the pass route of A, should be penalized if there is no attempt by A to block B. I'm not talking about some minor "bumping" but rather some obvious efforts by B to disrupt A's pass route.

REPLY: kentref...I respectfully disagree. There is no requirement that A be actually attempting to block B before B can retaliate with a block of his own. In fact, any attempt by A to block B would result in an OPI flag once a forward pass crosses the NZ anyway. All that's required for B to contact A is that A be a potential blocker, i.e. he's in a position where he could block if he was so inclined. Intuitively, that means that he's in front of the defender, between him and the runner/passer. Once he's even with B on the same yardline or has passed him or has begun to move away from the defender, I agree it's hands off. In fact, I'll go so far to say if the receiver is between the defender and the runner in a popsition to block him, the defender can shove the receiver to the ground with impunity. I think that if you start flagging pushes and hand checks against a receiver who is still in position to block the defender--even if they disrupt the receiver's route--you will be essentially making the Fed (or NCAA) game into an NFL 'illegal contact' game. I don't think that either the Fed or the NCAA intends for that to happen. Remember that the defender doesn't know whether the play will end up as a run or pass. He's given the permission/right to block A as a means of balancing the playing field. Just my humble opinion.

Originally posted by ScottV

Bob, can you post the article here as well.

REPLY: Scott...I'd be glad to post it, but I don't have access to a website where I could upload it myself. And it's a little too long to post here. If anyone out there has such a site, I'd be glad to e-mail it for posting.

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: All this rule change does is provide a 'baby step' toward the concept of catchability in Federation football. It doesn't change the rules or criteria for holding. I would bet if polled, 90% of the officials out there have been applying this new rule as a matter of course anyway.

Bob M.
I agree with you...I think we all have been doing it that way...

[ljudge]

Has anyone received the July 2005 edition of Referee? There's a "Chalk Talk" article talking about blocks involving eligibile receivers. Everyone should take a look as it shows 5 situations where a defender can block based on whether the A player is a "potential blocker" and it's right in line with Bob's posts. It's on page 45.

[Edited by ljudge on Jun 16th, 2005 at 07:17 PM]

[kentref]

Originally posted by ljudge
Has anyone received the July 2005 edition of Referee? There's a "Chalk Talk" article talking about blocks involving eligibile receivers. Everyone should take a look as it shows 5 situations where a defender can block based on whether the A player is a "potential blocker" and it's right in line with Bob's posts. It's on page 45.

[Edited by ljudge on Jun 16th, 2005 at 07:17 PM]

I agree, it's a good illustration. I could've used that in my back pocket a couple times last year to get the point across to some coaches.

[grantsrc]

Originally posted by Bob M.

snip: REPLY: kentref...I respectfully disagree. There is no requirement that A be actually attempting to block B before B can retaliate with a block of his own.

Bob, I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. We had this discussion on our crew last year and the other four were in agreement with you on the above statement. But I got hung up on one thing in the Federation case book. In 9.2.3 Sit A under ruling, it states "... However, if the receiver is not attempting to block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use hands in the manner described...." The term I have always heard in this situation is "A is presenting himself as a blocker." This means that A is no longer attempting to run his route and is either in a blocking position or stance, or doing some other non-pass route action trying to disrupt B, like standing in his way or trying to get in front of B. Once his is not presenting himself as a blocker, B can contact/block/push A freely. I think this way of thinking clearly separates "receiver" from "potential blocker".

Obviously the language of potential blocker is a little fuzzy, but I think B shouldn't be allowed to blantantly disrupt A's passing routes. If A is obviously trying to run past B, why should B be allowed to push/block/bump A? That goes back to advantage/disadvantage. Who's gaining the advantage in this situation? B.

With that said, I DO NOT feel that you should flag this every single time it happens. That would make for an extremely long game. I do think there needs to be a comment said to the coaches or players. And if a situation occurs where B grossly disrupts A's route, like knocking him on his backside while he is trying to run past B, then that should be flagged since A was not presenting himself as a blocker. Actually, I planned on bringing this up at our state rules meetings here soon. This subject has officials on different sides, and clarification is definitely needed.

REPLY: Scott...I'd be glad to post it, but I don't have access to a website where I could upload it myself. And it's a little too long to post here. If anyone out there has such a site, I'd be glad to e-mail it for posting.

Bob, if you like, I have a site where it could be posted. Let me know and I can get it up for everyone.

[Edited by grantsrc on Jun 17th, 2005 at 07:36 AM]

[kentref]

Bob M. You make a good argument re my previous points. I agree that until a receiver gets to the same yardline as the defender, the defender has the right to contact the receiver and the receiver has no right to initiate contact, even if the defender is in his way, (assuming of course that the play is a pass play). That said, when the receiver is going past the defender and the defender keeps initiating contact to disrupt the receiver's route, then I think you've got to address it. If the ball goes the other way I'll usually talk to the defender the first time. If he then keeps doing it, I'll use the flag. Position of the passer is a consideration. If the passer rolls right and my receiver/defender action is over on the left sideline, I'll probably just talk to the player.

Good discussion all!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ScottV
I agree that the bumping restiction is only in the NFL. Fed and NCAA B can bump or legally block potental blocker A until the ball is in the air.

And in your mind, when is he no longer a potential blocker?