Illegal Use of the Hands

[Suudy]

I've been involved in a long time disagreement over rule 9.2.3d with a WH. This is my 9th year officiating, and last year I called a kid for illegal use of the hands for contacting a wide receiver downfield before the ball was in the air. Here's the situation:

A1 is runs down the sideline on a pass route. B1 charges A1 and hits him full speed knocking A1 out of bounds. After hitting A1, quarterback A2, not seeing that A1 was hit, throws a pass downfield where A1 would have been had he not been hit (i.e. a streak route).

I flagged B1 because it was obvious that A1 was no longer a potential blocker. My white hat waved off the flag saying that it was legal contact since the ball was not in the air and the contact occurred in front and above the waist. When I mentioned 9.2.3d he said that was for illegal contact such as a hit in the back, hands to the face, etc.

Since then, I've called it with other WH's, and they are fine with it. I've just learned not to call it with this one WH. He's very experienced (over 30 years), but he just fundamentally disagrees with me on this one. Perhaps I'm being stubborn, but that kind of contact on a receiver seems unfair and that is the reason for the rule.

What would you guys do?

[BulldogMcC]

Originally posted by Suudy
I've been involved in a long time disagreement over rule 9.2.3d with a WH. This is my 9th year officiating, and last year I called a kid for illegal use of the hands for contacting a wide receiver downfield before the ball was in the air. Here's the situation:

A1 is runs down the sideline on a pass route. B1 charges A1 and hits him full speed knocking A1 out of bounds. After hitting A1, quarterback A2, not seeing that A1 was hit, throws a pass downfield where A1 would have been had he not been hit (i.e. a streak route).

I flagged B1 because it was obvious that A1 was no longer a potential blocker. My white hat waved off the flag saying that it was legal contact since the ball was not in the air and the contact occurred in front and above the waist. When I mentioned 9.2.3d he said that was for illegal contact such as a hit in the back, hands to the face, etc.

Since then, I've called it with other WH's, and they are fine with it. I've just learned not to call it with this one WH. He's very experienced (over 30 years), but he just fundamentally disagrees with me on this one. Perhaps I'm being stubborn, but that kind of contact on a receiver seems unfair and that is the reason for the rule.

What would you guys do?

I would read/copy for him 9.2.3 Situation A in the case book. And every time I saw it I would call it. If he waved it off again I would add the WH to my NO list because I either have him embarsassing us by waving off my call or I have to overlook an obvious penalty.

[ljudge]

Where was A1 when he was contacted by the B player? If he was occupying the same yardline or further then I'd say you may have something, otherwise if they're facing each other and it's B facing / blocking and throwing A off his route you don't have anything. The NFL has this 5-yard chuck rule but at the Fed level they can do that all the way down the field up until the A player occupies the same yardline (or beyond) or is moving away from B.

[l3will]

I agree with ljudge... it all depends on where A was relative to B.

[Suudy]

Originally posted by ljudge
Where was A1 when he was contacted by the B player? If he was occupying the same yardline or further then I'd say you may have something, otherwise if they're facing each other and it's B facing / blocking and throwing A off his route you don't have anything. The NFL has this 5-yard chuck rule but at the Fed level they can do that all the way down the field up until the A player occupies the same yardline (or beyond) or is moving away from B.

B1 hits A1 from the front. And not the bump-and-run type hit where you just shiver the guy. I mean a full blown hit in an effort to prevent the receiver from running his route 10-15 yards downfield. I know NFHS does not have the 5-yard rule, but as I read 9.2.3d at that point it is obvious that A1 is no longer a potential blocker--he's running a route.

[BulldogMcC]

Originally posted by Suudy

B1 hits A1 from the front. And not the bump-and-run type hit where you just shiver the guy. I mean a full blown hit in an effort to prevent the receiver from running his route 10-15 yards downfield. I know NFHS does not have the 5-yard rule, but as I read 9.2.3d at that point it is obvious that A1 is no longer a potential blocker--he's running a route.

I think what they are trying to say is if A runs into B, it won't be a foul. From the original post it was obvious that A1 was nt a potential blocker and that B1 'charged' into him so I called it as illegal. I do agree though that on the field, relative position and actions dictate whether this is flagged or not. Charging into a player who is obviously not a blocker will get a flag, bumping as both players continue a line, may or may not, it depends. If A charges into B, and thereafter there is a forward pass that crosses the NZ, you have OPI.

[l3will]

Originally posted by BulldogMcC
[/B]

I think what they are trying to say is if A runs into B, it won't be a foul. From the original post it was obvious that A1 was nt a potential blocker and that B1 'charged' into him so I called it as illegal. I do agree though that on the field, relative position and actions dictate whether this is flagged or not. Charging into a player who is obviously not a blocker will get a flag, bumping as both players continue a line, may or may not, it depends. If A charges into B, and thereafter there is a forward pass that crosses the NZ, you have OPI. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think what we are trying to say is that you have to see the whole thing. Even if A does not run into B, but is running toward B, he is a potential blocker; so if the ball is not in the air he can be blocked by B legally. Once A reaches the same yard line as B or gets deeper than B he is not a potential blocker anymore.

The original post doesn't really make it 100% clear where B was when he blocked A. If he came from the side, then I would tend to agree that it was illegal contact; if he met him pretty much head on, then legal.

Where's the video when you need it? Eventually, there should be support for that type of forum... wouldn't that be nice.

[JDLJ]

I agree that we'd need to see this to decide but, from the original post, I think that we have to remember that B1 has the right to block/contact A1 legally before the ball is thrown because the defender can assume A1 might block him as long as A1 is still coming towards him. In 9-2-3, the A1 is moving away from B1.

Suudy, you seem to have had this call a lot and I don't think I've ever seen it called. You may be taking away B's right to contact a receiver before the ball is thrown. I would talk to some experienced wide guys and listen to what they say.

[Suudy]

Originally posted by JDLJ
I agree that we'd need to see this to decide but, from the original post, I think that we have to remember that B1 has the right to block/contact A1 legally before the ball is thrown because the defender can assume A1 might block him as long as A1 is still coming towards him. In 9-2-3, the A1 is moving away from B1.

Not in the rule book. But in the case book, yes.

Originally posted by JDLJ
Suudy, you seem to have had this call a lot and I don't think I've ever seen it called. You may be taking away B's right to contact a receiver before the ball is thrown. I would talk to some experienced wide guys and listen to what they say.[/B]

I wouldn't say a lot. Two or three times over the last 8 years. Another situation I can think of where I threw it was a TE on a crossing route 7-8 yards deep. The TE was looking back towards the QB with his hand raised and a linebacker de-cleated him. The contact was from the front and above the waist, before the ball was thrown. This act seemed intentional to prevent the TE from running his route.

Though I think I'm starting to see his (and many of your) points. Despite the fact it is an obvious pass play (the QB drops back, the receiver is running a route, the linemen are pass blocking, perhaps a receiver with a raised hand) the receiver is still a potential blocker because of his position. If the QB were to scramble, or a screen pass thrown, at that point the receiver could become a blocker. I guess I'm trying to understand the intent of the rule. The case book hints that a receiver that is not attempting to block is also not a potential blocker. "...if the receiver is not attempting to block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal...."

I'm starting to think I'm wrong on this one. Am I alone in thinking the scenarios described constitute at least unfair contact?

[JDLJ]

It almost sounds like you are confusing what you think is unfair vs. what is illegal. I almost all cases, there is a direct correlation between the two but not always. Some things that I think are "unfair" but usually are legal a hard count to draw the defense offside, the punter throwing a high arcing pass which mimics a punt so B will block while the ball is in the air and get a DPI call, charging the ball on a kick off and stopping to draw R offside and I'm sure I could think of a few more. These practices are legal under the rules (NF) but I don't like them.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I agree with I3will and ljudge. If a receiver is coming off the line toward B, B has every right in the world to block him if A is in a position where he could be a potential blocker. Blocking is not restricted to the offense. Once A has passed B or has made a cut away from him, then it's hands off.

[Suudy]

Originally posted by JDLJ
It almost sounds like you are confusing what you think is unfair vs. what is illegal. I almost all cases, there is a direct correlation between the two but not always. Some things that I think are "unfair" but usually are legal a hard count to draw the defense offside, the punter throwing a high arcing pass which mimics a punt so B will block while the ball is in the air and get a DPI call, charging the ball on a kick off and stopping to draw R offside and I'm sure I could think of a few more. These practices are legal under the rules (NF) but I don't like them.

Fair enough. I see your point. I was trying to apply the intent of the rule. And I guess I let my thinking be influenced to some degree by Sunday.

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I agree with I3will and ljudge. If a receiver is coming off the line toward B, B has every right in the world to block him if A is in a position where he could be a potential blocker. Blocking is not restricted to the offense. Once A has passed B or has made a cut away from him, then it's hands off.

I'm convinced! Thanks for the help guys.

[cowbyfan1]

On the TE situation, that is definetly an illegal use of hands foul. I would not have a problem calling it.

[WyMike]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
On the TE situation, that is definetly an illegal use of hands foul. I would not have a problem calling it.

It's leaning towards the TE is not a potential blocker any longer if he's dragging behind the LB's waving for the ball. Especially if you're reading your keys as a passing play.

WM

[Suudy]

Originally posted by WyMike
It's leaning towards the TE is not a potential blocker any longer if he's dragging behind the LB's waving for the ball. Especially if you're reading your keys as a passing play.

In the situation I was describing, the TE was crossing midfield, and the LB came across and hit from the front. The TE was not behind the LB, but roughly parallel. It was a legal block. The TE did not see it coming because he was looking back at the QB.

Given some of the arguments, it was because of the TE's position that made the contact legal. The TE was in a position to be a blocker, but based upon his action, it was obvious he was not. I do see the point of those that say the contact was legal, because he could, in fact, become a blocker quickly. If the QB were to suddenly tuck and run, the TE could begin blocking.