Penalty or not?????
 

A1, a WR, is running a down and out route. As he runs downfield and BEFORE the pass is thrown, B1, who is defending A1, stops. A1 continues his route, runs into B1, pushes him down, catches the ball and scores. Any call here???

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Illegal Contact on an Eligible Receiver/Pass Interference on A1. 10/15 yards from PLS, DR.

If the WR sees the DB and pushes him, I have a flag.

If the DB is trying to draw a charge, I've got nothing.

That was my take on it also. This play was explained to me this morning, I didn't actually see it. The play was called OPI which is wrong if the pass hadn't been thrown. I probably go with holding on A1 if he had plenty of room to avoid the defender.

I don't think many people know that the defender is an eligible receiver also!

NF - This one can be tough and the reason you must see the whole play. If A initiated the contact, that one is easy - OPI.

But, if I determine B1’s stop caused the initial contact or A does not have time to avoid the contact, I am going to give A some leeway to get away from the defender, certainly not to the point of pushing the defender to the ground or to create separation. But if B initiated the contact (and I am assuming A is still a potential blocker), then trips and falls - I have nothing.

I can visualize this play several ways.

I have to disagree with Tony on this. The defense cannot cut off the route of receiver on purpose. Now the question is if you feel it is on purpose or the players just ran into each other. It really is one of those situations that you would have to ultimately see, but I feel you could have a penalty in that situation.

Peace

So, in other words, if the play happened as in the OP, you have OPI.

But if it happened some other way, you likely have something other than OPI.

Also, we must see every play in its entirety. ;)

Why is there no such animal as illegal contact by the offense? :confused:

If defenders are eligible, as you remind us, then doesn't IC seem like the logical foul? A1 didn't hold B1 at all - he knocked him down! On the LS, that isn't a hold. On a COP, it isn't a hold. Behind the LS, it isn't a hold. So why is it a hold here?

Passing restrictions for the defense and offense do not start at the same time. And illegal contact is not the kind of foul you can call at the NF level (probably NCAA, but I am not 100% sure of that).

Peace

Holding is the call for illegal contact with an eligible receiver BEFORE the pass is thrown.

Would this not be a case of offensive holding if the defender gave plenty of room to the receiver and defensive holding if he cut the route off?????

Maybe the defender tried to cut off the route (penalty) and the receiver pushed off as a reaction to the contact.

Actually it is illegal use of hands to block or displace a "receiver" running their route by the defense. Holding would apply to holding just like any other time. If you have a push off or action by the offense while trying to run a route, then you have OPI if the pass is thrown.

Peace

Correct. My bad. I was visualizing the signal, which is the same as holding.

BTW, when do you feel an offensive playaer is no longer a potential blocker? I say that as long as the defender stays in front of the receiver and the receiver is not running in an oblique manner, then he is fine to contact the receiver as he is still a potential blocker.

In my case originally, when do the offensive restrictions start for OPI? I don't have my book with me right now.

When the offensive player is no longer a potential blocker. In other words when it is clear they are running a route and not attacking the defensive player. I tend to give the defense some leeway, but not leeway that allows them to just run over a receiver. Complete judgment call and you have to see it to know when it takes place.

Restrictions for the offense begin at the snap.

Peace

How can you have DPI if the ball is not in the air?

Restrictions for the OFFENSE start at the snap. Restrictions for the DEFENSE with the pass.

I assume this is because the offense should know it is a pass play at the snap, while the defense wouldn't know until the pass was thrown.

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.

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.