Maybe I am missing something here, but we are talking about the OP right? And we are talking about a play with contact and what would or what would not be a foul right? No one is talking about what can or cannot happen without contact. And someone here implied that you could have "illegal contact" under NF rules. No one said there cannot be contact, but if there is a receiver, you better be careful how much contact you initiate.

Peace

no, we're talking about your statement "you cannot cut off a receiver running a route". Which is not a true statement.

Whatever dude. I think you have a little too much time on your hands and you are thinking a little too much about what was said. There was a context to my statement and we are talking about a very specific situation.

BTW, if you change the rule we are talking about, then that is very much a true statement. You are more concerned with a statement, then what we are actually talking about.

Peace

what rule might that be?

Rule 9-2-3d which says under Illegal Use of Hands and Holding, "Contact with an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker."

And if you look in the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook on page 141 it says, "When No. 80 is no longer a potential blocker, contacting the receiver is illegal use of hands by the defense. Once No. 80 (there are two descriptions of this play) is on the same yard line as the defender or after he has made his cut away from the defender, he is no longer a potential blocker. If this contact occurs after a forward pass which crosses the neutral zone is in flight, it is defensive passing interference."

Of course we were not talking about a pass, but we were talking about contact before a pass was thrown.

Peace

REPLY: Mike, the term 'cutoff' refers to contact made by the defender against the receiver while the pass is in flight that prevents the receiver from moving toward the pass. This is sort of like a block out in basketball. A good example is a receiver running a sideline route. Pass is thrown to the inside. As the receiver turns inward to pursue the pass, the defender makes contact and effectively blocks his path to the ball. That's what's typically meant by 'cutoff.' But you're correct. If B is in A's path and A stops his movement toward the ball because B is in the way and there's no contact, then there's no foul.

Note: Cutoff is not a defined term, but this is its accepted meaning.

And we were only talking about a play with contact. So even if he did not understand the term (which is very clear to many here obviously), no one here ever suggested we were talking about a play where someone just stands in someone's way. In my opinion his point is kind of silly if you read the entire thread.

Peace

I understand what cut-off means. I also understand that blanket statements like "You cannot cut off a receiver running a route" are dangerously misguided. To go back to the 2007 casebook example it states
B3 gets in the path of a receiver (sorta sounds like a possible "cut-off" huh?) A4 without making contact. B3's presence results in (a) A4 slowing to avoid contact or (b) A4 inititaing contact in an effort to reach the ball. No foul in (a) but a foul in (b) by A4 for OPI (which sounds even more like the OP).
So it continues to go back to who initiates contact by the cut-off. You can dance around it all you want by claiming cut-off means a certain thing that you implied, but it still remains as I said you have to determine who caused the contact to initiate. Just because B steps into the path of A's route does not mean B initiated the contact.
And as a side, if you want to talk about things not remotely related to the subject, just how does B step into the route of an A receiver who has turned away from him? Or how can you say A is no longer a potential blocker. If B manages to get in A's way without initiating contact, isn't A now coming at him?

I am really at a loss, because we were talking about a very specific situation. All answers on a discussion board are not about all rules and all possible situations. I am sorry that you took the statement as an all encompassing statement, but we were talking about one situation and trying to dispel a term that was not in our code and that was "illegal contact."

I sometimes wish people would stop trying to take a statement and add stuff to it when the context is very clear. We were not even talking about DPI; the ball was not in the air in the original example.

I am going to interject some logic into this conversation. If you "cut off" a receiver, would that not be a purposeful act? Would that mean that someone other than the receiver is responsible for the cut off or contact?

Once again, my comment was about contact and making contact with an eligible receiver. It was not about just getting in the way of someone or directing them without any contact. I stand by what I said; you cannot cut off a receiver from their route before the ball is in the air. You sound like a coach that talks about a "moving screen" in basketball and there was no contact.

Peace

My - Hasn’t this become a feisty post! I suppose I started using the term “cut off” – if that caused confusion to the OP, I apologize. My intension was to describe B’s stop as the (possible) action that caused the “contact on an eligible receiver” (non-potential blocker) as in 9-2-3d.

Even with the foul by B, it does not eliminate A’s restriction to block under the same provision and 7-5-8a. As stated in an earlier post, I will allow A some leeway to avoid or get away from the contact. But it can not include A simply “pushing B to the ground”.

I agree with JRutledge, I’d prefer to call one or the other. But I can also visualize fouls by both players in this situation, resulting in a double foul. I do not mean to imply it should always be a double foul – only that it is a possibility as described in the OP.