This could be solved if they made it possible for illegal contact against the offense. It's easier to follow - same fouls for violating the same restrictions starting at the same time for both teams.

When did I say this was DPI?

Peace

Why would this need to be solved? The rules are fine; you do not need another rule to complicate a simple situation.

Peace

You misunderstood me. There would likely be less rules, not another one.

Bit it doens't matter anyways.

Agree on the wink!

I'm saying, I could have a double foul - Illegal use of hands or contact if the defender cut him off and A is no longer a potential blocker and OPI if A subsequently pushes B to the ground.

I could also visualize this as incidental contact with no foul at all. But with the push by A (as described), I think you have OPI at the very least.

If the ball is in the air and the WR initiates contact on the defender, that's OPI.

If the ball is NOT in the air and the WR makes a legal block on the defender (above the waist, from the front, etc.), what FED rule prohibits that contact?

If a pass is thrown following the contact it's OPI. The offense is restricted from the time of the snap until the pass ends or the ball is touched.

"I tend to give the defense some leeway, but not leeway that allows them to just run over a receiver."

There are other fouls that can be committed other than DPI in this situation. DPI only applies when the ball is in the air and there is a throw in the direction of a receiver. That was not what we were talking about here. We are talking about what can or can be done before the throw is even in the air and when or how a defensive player can contact an offensive player that is a potential receiver. DPI has nothing to do with this part of the rule.

Peace

You're mixing some posts up. That was not my quote. I know DPI has nothing to do with that nad that was the point I was trying to make.

I know it was not your post. I also do not know how you got DPI out of what we have been talking about. We were talking about illegal activity before the ball is in the air.

Peace

REPLY: In the original post, two things stand out: "...BEFORE the pass is thrown", and "...pushes him down." On the surface, this sounds like OPI if the word 'pushes' is to imply that the offensive receiver used his hands to push (block) the defender. If the receiver just runs into the defender (especially if he looking back toward the QB waiting for the pass) this is probably going to get a 'no call' from me.

The thing that really makes this tricky is B stopping - implying a cutoff. I think there is an argument for a double foul.:eek: Even the cutoff does not eliminate A’s restriction to block or push.

This one I'd really have to see.

This is where your judgment comes in. You cannot cut off a receiver running a route. You can engage a blocker or potential blocker as a defender. I do not think you could have a double foul if you feel you have a receiver being hit by the defender. From my point of view it would have to be one or the other at least using the example in the OP.

Peace

By what rule do you make the statement "You cannot cut off a receiver running a route"?
Apparently, the NFHS thinks differently. For example, look at 2007 case book sit 7.5.10E. (yeah I know 2007, but that's what I have with me here at work. 2008 stays home.) B's simply stepping into the path without making contact is not a foul. Does the step-in by B initiate the contact or does A have time to avoid B being there? A judgment call all the way, but legally altering the route of a receiver is just good defense.
On this one, I agree with Bob. Pushing the defender down sorta implies action by A that would draw a flag for a foul by him.