|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) Last edited by JRutledge; Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:06pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
Note: Cutoff is not a defined term, but this is its accepted meaning.
__________________
Bob M. Last edited by Bob M.; Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:26pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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? Last edited by Mike L; Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:51pm. |
|
|||
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. Quote:
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Penalty for T? | imagomer | Basketball | 3 | Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:10am |
penalty | sm_bbcoach | Football | 4 | Fri Oct 27, 2006 04:16am |
Penalty? | fan | Football | 3 | Thu Oct 05, 2006 07:54am |
Penalty? | fan | Football | 6 | Wed Sep 13, 2006 03:33pm |
Penalty on Try | lds7199 | Football | 13 | Tue Nov 01, 2005 08:53am |