First 2 Games down

[Jim D]

The problem comes from 9-2-3-d "The defense shall not contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker."

In the case play 9.2.3 Situation A it adds, " if the receiver is not attempting to block or has moved pass or in moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use hands in this matter..."

We aren't talking pass interfernce here - it would be illegal use of the hands. The question is, if a tight end is moving across the field and "is not attempting to block", can he be contacted? By the strict application of this rule, he can't. However, if he is between the linebacker and the QB does that make him a potential blocker even if he might be looking back toward the QB?

[wheels]

NDRef, you were saying?

[NDRef]

Originally Posted by wheels

NDRef, you were saying?

I guess at the end of the day--we as officials have to determine when a player ceases to be a "potential blocker". Wheels, I trust your judgement for you to decide this on your own. There are numerous examples of the offense trying to "sell" a pass play in order to capitalize on a run play. Just one example is a Quarterback draw. The QB drops back, TE runs across the middle looking back--QB runs the ball. All I am saying that until I have a pass play the TE running across the middle is still a "potential" blocker--and blocking restrictions are the same for the offense and defense, so he can be hit. Unless you have illegal use of the hands and the QB now runs, what possible penalty can you have on this play based on the action of the LB just coming up and blocking the TE.

Once again the key is "potential blocker" and we must each decide that judgement on our own. However, I am not going to throw a flag on a legal hit\block by the defense before a pass is thrown.

[wheels]

NDRef,

As a wing guy I would have a hard time making that call. Thank Goodness we have 5 man for vasrity. That is a BJ call. It would be hard for the wing guys to pickup the TE in the middle and flanks on the outside. I'm quick, but not the quick. I can't wait for the season to start. I guess California is a little behind. But we have scrimmages this weekend and the season starts next Thursday.

[NDRef]

Originally Posted by wheels

NDRef,

As a wing guy I would have a hard time making that call. Thank Goodness we have 5 man for vasrity. That is a BJ call. It would be hard for the wing guys to pickup the TE in the middle and flanks on the outside. I'm quick, but not the quick. I can't wait for the season to start. I guess California is a little behind. But we have scrimmages this weekend and the season starts next Thursday.

Wheels,

I agree, and on our crew that call does belong to the BJ. Up here in the frequently frozen north, we've already had a couple of games--game 3 tomorrow night. Good luck on your season, and thank you for the professional level of conversation.

[wheels]

Thanks! same to you!

[MJT]

Hold on guys! I work HS and college and have been to many clinics with D1 and NFL officials and you are giving team B way to much leeway. He is a potential blocker if he is going forward, but once he makes a cut (even at an angle) he is in his route and no longer a potential blocker. He does not have to be on the same yardline as the defender. If he is running a crossing route and running parallel to the LOS, how can you say he is a potential blocker? There is no way he is and if you call it that way you are giving the defense a huge advantage and missinterpreting the rule. It is illegal use of hands until the ball is in the air and DPI if the ball is in the air and crosses the NZ.

[PaulJak]

Jim D. thanks for the rule reference.

(This got long winded as I kept typing, sorry)

This starts to get into a judgement decision (which is why we get paid the big bucks ). The key word in that is potential blocker. What does potential mean? If you are between me and the ball are you a potential blocker?

If you are running a drag route across the middle I'm still reading you as potential blocker. The defender may or may not realize that A is running a sweep and the drag route is really A moving to block downfield. A knows what play they are running, B doesn't, so B is given a higher degree of latitude for contact - until the ball is thrown.

I think that everybody on A is a potential blocker until that ball is actually thrown. After its thrown, everyone but the player who caught it starts to block again, which means they remain a potential blocker throughout the down (with the exception of when the pass is in flight - which is when B is restricted).

It may seem like I'm ignoring 9-2-3-d, but I'm not aware of potential blocker being defined and it doesn't specify a time period during the down. So if A can return to being a blocker later in the down, they are a potential blocker throughout the down.

[PaulJak]

i saw l3will's post after I had typed my reply. Thanks for posting the Cases.

The key to this case is that he was moving away from the player who made contact. If in that same case B2 comes up from the secondary and makes legal contact with the A player who is running towards B2, do you still have a foul?

A was clearly not blocking, but he also wasn't past or moving away from B2 in this case. I would think there is no foul on B2. Just because he got past B1 doesn't mean B2 can't come up and make contact.

BTW, I shouldn't leave my books in the car during work

[wheels]

Paul,

Defensive coaches are going to LOVE YOU!!!

[Mike L]

Some interesting rule interpretations here. I'm just wondering if I've got it straight. Once a receiver makes a "cut" or once it's appears he no longer intends to block, he cannot be touched. And this may even create a delayed flag requirement to see if a pass is actually thrown. So....

1) say a receiver breaks on a quick slant at the snap and the defender contacts him. Does this count as a "cut"?

2) is it reasonable to assume on just about any pass play, no receiver will attempt to block since their job is to get open for the pass and therefore no contact is allowed at all and delayed flags should come raining down from just about everywhere?

3) is "bump & run" coverage illegal if the receiver immediately tries to break away from the defender? After all he's both cutting and not attempting to block. Or does this count as a cut? Are we supposed to try to determine what is a cut and what is just an altered route?

Yes, these are some extreme examples geared towards a certain point, which I'm sure you can all determine where I'm coming from. Perhaps we would be better off with the NFL 5yd bump rule since what it appears some may be trying to apply is much more restrictive.