Legal or not?

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Suudy

It does, in rule 9.2.3d:

Art. 3...A defensive player shall not:
d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.

Coupled with 2.3.5b (emphasis mine):

Art. 5...A defensive player may also:
b. Push, pull or ward off an opponent in an actual attempt to get at the runner or a loose ball if such contact is not pass interference, a personal foul or illegal use of the hands.

In the original post, it can be argued that A2 is no longer a potential blocker, thus the contact, even if in an attempt to get to the QB, is illegal use of the hands.

I think the question is whether A2 (or any other eligible receiver) is a potential blocker when behind the line. The key, I think, in the original post is that "A2 is looking back to the QB", thus is no longer a potential blocker.

I would agree that in the backfield they should be considered potential blockers. The way I have always been taught is that they are no longer a potential blocker when they are on the same yard line or behind the defender....and it can be argued that the defense is attemting to get to a loose ball that they can legally touch or posess...granted it hasn't been thrown yet, but it is no more of a stretch to go down this road than to say the back is not a potential blocker in my mind...

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by TXMike

http://www.safootballchapter.us/VID/DefPF.WMV

This is the play on the NCAA tape. I still don't see the personal foul

REPLY: I don't either. The defender was in a direct line between the runner and the tackler. And it was clear that after the push, he continued on a path to the runner. He wasn't just hitting the blocker to hit him. What was he supposed to do--ask the blocker to move?

[Jim D]

Bob, That is the argument I had with our local state interpreter. His point was, regardless of the intent, etc. that this is illegal use of the hands on the defense for contacting a receiver. Let's just say we agreed to disagree on how this play should be treated.

[cmathews]

case book 9.2.3 c read the rulings here. While not the same exact play, I would contend that the OP play would allow the defense even greater latitude. A can be blocked by B behind the NZ. This is from 2006 case book, as I haven't gotten the new ones yet, I have been assured that they are in the mail however.

[MadCityRef]

In Fed., pass interference restrictions are beyond the LOS, not behind. If the neither the pass nor the receiver are beyond the LOS, it's a legal play.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jim D

This play was reviewed in an association meeting the other night. I thought I'd put it out here for comments.

Back A2 goes out into the right flat (behind the line) as a potential receiver and QB A1 is also rolling to the right. Defensive player B1 is coming across the line and heading for the QB. As back A2 crosses in front of him while A2 is looking back to the QB, B1 pushes A2 out of his way so he can continue on his path to A1.

Legal contact or not?

B can interfere with A while A is in the NZ and those A players protecting the passer. [9-4-9b]

It does not seem that A2 was protecting the passer, and in fact is a high candidate as a pass recipient. [9-4-10b]

Illegal contact: 10 yards from PLS, down repeated.