Legal or not?

[cmathews]

Granted I don't have my books with me. However, I don't recall any language in the rulebook that says that A must be a potential blocker before B can push them out of the way to get the ball. In the original situation, if the ball is in the air and the contact by B is not below the waist nor otherwise a personal foul, it is legal. There is no DPI behind the LOS and unless it is leading with the head, I probably don't have anything if A2 gets knocked down....I just don't see where anyone can interpret this play as illegal, for any reason, at least not from the Original Post....IMHO

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by cmathews

Granted I don't have my books with me. However, I don't recall any language in the rulebook that says that A must be a potential blocker before B can push them out of the way to get the ball.

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.

[truerookie]

I would have a difficult time flagging this play. I have seen situations where a potential receiver turns into a blocker. In OP, I would interpret this situation as the receiver looking to seen the location of the QB until the receiver crosses the LOS. The defender is not 100% sure if the back is a receiver or blocker. Let's watch the entire play before we flag it.

[TXMike]

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

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

[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.

[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...