Defensive Pass Interference
 

NFHS

Is there ever a time on a pass play where a defender can make legal contact with a potential receiver without penalty?

anytime
 

well almost...anytime the ball is in the air...or anytime that both players are making a bona fide attempt to get the ball as long as the defender doesn't go through the receiver yada yada

Pass interference restrictions on the defense begin when the pass is thrown. Before that B can legally contact eligible A receivers if they are potential blockers. One the A player is even with the B player or moving away, B may no longer block him. The foul would be illegal use of hands.

Once the pass is in the air B cannot interfere with A (for passes beyond the neutral zone). That does not mean that all contact is a foul.

My question is poorly worded. I'm particularily interested in the interval between the snap and the A player being in front of, or beside the defender. Not beyond the defender, or clearly into his pass route.

I agree with your statement that once the A player is even with the B player or moving away, B may no longer block him. Can you reference that from the rules book? or is that your opinion?

ART. 3 . . . A defensive player shall not:
d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.

9.2.3 SITUATION A: End A1 sprints from the line and then cuts sharply toward the middle of the field. A1 makes no attempt to block defensive back B1. B1 pursues A1 and pushes him from the side using his open hands. Contact is made on A1’s upper arm before the pass is thrown. A1 was moving away from B1 when the contact occurred. RULING: Illegal use of hands by B1. A defender may legally contact an eligible receiver beyond the neutral zone before the pass is in flight. The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attempting to block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use hands in the manner described. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)

Interesting that the case switches from referring to mere "contact" to "use hands in the manner described". As some of you know, not being an official, I haven't kept up with all the rule changes in the various codes but did study them carefully for a while. Historically, the restrictions on contact by B vs. receivers were written as prohibitions on use of the hands & arms (not including the shoulder), which were only supposed to be used to tackle a ballcarrier or ward off blockers. But were the rules actually changed in Fed to prohibit all forms of contact by B against an eligible A receiver on B's side of the neutral zone when a forward pass is still possible and the A player is clearly not a blocker? I parse the above sentence's "The contact may be a block" as meaning a block by B1 with hands & arms kept close to the body would be legal regardless of whether it was to ward off A1, and that the "warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him" means that if A1 is attempting to block B1, then B1 may push or pull him as well.

Robert

The case play is illustrating that the contact itself was legal. It was not holding, clipping, nor any other way of illegally contacting a player. The reason it was a foul was because the A1 was not a potential blocker. It doesn't matter if the hit on A1 is from the front with open hands, above the waist, it is still a foul.

The correct phrase is "potential blocker". It may not be clear if A1 is intending on blocking B23 or running a pass route. As long as A1 potentially may end up blocking B23, then B23 can hit him. If A1 is moving away or has passed B23, A1 is not a potential blocker and cannot be contacted by B23.

Yes, all contact by B is illegal in that situation. I do not call every touch by B a foul though. More or less unless A is affected then I let it go.

Then why does it say "if the receiver is not attempting to block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use hands in the manner described." (my emphasis)?

Then do you think the "situation" language is just old, dating from a time when 9.2.3 prohibited only use of hands, rather than all contact, against potential receivers who were no longer potential blockers of the opponent contacting them?

Or do you read "the opponent who is attempting to block" as applying to both "The contact may be a block" and "warding off the opponent...by pushing or pulling him"? I read it as applying only to the latter, because it wraps around the phrase "the opponent who is attempting to block", while "The contact may be a block" does not.

Robert

This explains a lot.