No Longer a Potential Blocker

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Sonofanump

Originally Posted by kdf5
...has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use hands

We have always used this as our guideline.

Would it be illegal use of hands if A does a button hook in front of B and B contacts him before the ball is thrown?

[kdf5]

Ed: You're saying the receiver runs towards the defender then buttonhooks back towards the line of scrimmage? I guess I can't see a way it would be IUH since the defender's either going to have to hit him in the back or hit him from the side in which case he's not moving away.

[waltjp]

AJ, there's really no sense arguing with you. With your philosophy you wouldn't last very long on my crew.

End of discussion.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Because you say so? You haven't proved it. You say up above that it is "different than other rule codes". Now you say it may not be the case. Which is it?

I'm not sure, Kdf5 whether you're seriously looking for an answer, or looking for an argument. I have no interest in parsing words with you and have been trying to explain, a pretty basic understanding. My apologies if I have not been clear enough for you.

Allow me to start, and try again. A defensive player may legally initiate contact with an opponent anywhere on the field, so long as it doesn't violate NF: 2.3.5 or 6.

The simple fact that any offensive player happens to qualify as an eligible receiver is totally immaterial as to what he can do, or can be done to him during a running play. Until someone actually throws a pass, the defense is entirely within it's rights to consider the play unfolding a running play, up to the instant a legal forward pass is actually thrown.

Until a legal forward pass is thrown, a defensive player is entitled to iniate contact with any opponent who is between him, and the runner, or until an opponent occupies the same yard line (without posing a blocking threat) or has run past the defender, or is running away from the defender.

If the defender is skilled enough to keep his opponent between him and the runner, whereas that opponent remains a potential blocker, until such runner becomes a passer, he can initiate contact legally over the entire length of a football field. The notion that an opponent, because of his eligibility to catch a forward pass, somehow allows him freedom from contact prior to a legal pass being thrown is absolute and utter nonsense, unless the receiver is judged, by the covering official, to no longer pose a blocking threat, by running past, or away from, the defender.

Other rule codes have applied additional restrictions, i.e. no contact after 5 yards, that DO NOT apply to NFHS rules.

Waltjp: I have no idea what your problem is, or what you find problematic with what I've said, but either I'm not getting my point across, or you're not paying attention to what I've said. If you'd care to be more specific, I'd be happy to address your concerns.

In the meantime, don't concern yourself with my being interested in applying to work on "your crew".

[Mike L]

The problem with this rule is really quite simple. "Potential Blocker", just what the heck is that? It's not well defined anywhere in the book and we are stuck with only a case book play that presents a blatantly obvious example.
So, barring a clear directive from ones assoc, it's simply up to the covering official to decide when the defense has crossed that line between acceptable and non-acceptable contact. And that's why we get the big bucks. If B is in front of A, he can do just about any legal block. If they are side-by-side, realistically all I've ever seen is some incidental contact, but if B knocks A seriously off his path I probably have a foul. If A gets beyond B, 99.9% of the time B isn't going to be blocking anyway, he's going to be grabbing & holding. If A is clearly not acting like a blocker, for example Ed's buttonhook question, I don't know how you can possibly allow a B to just blast him no matter where he's coming from. Potential blockers rarely just stand there looking back at the QB.

[kdf5]

'Tis but a flesh wound! You've been clear enough - clearly wrong. I asked for you to cite rules twice but you've morphed so many times it's clear I'm not going to get an answer from you. It's pretty simple. It is illegal use of hands to contact an eligible receiver who's no longer a potential blocker. I hope, for the sake of the offensive team it never happens in front of you.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

'Tis but a flesh wound! You've been clear enough - clearly wrong. I asked for you to cite rules twice but you've morphed so many times it's clear I'm not going to get an answer from you. It's pretty simple. It is illegal use of hands to contact an eligible receiver who's no longer a potential blocker. I hope, for the sake of the offensive team it never happens in front of you.

I really don't know what your problem is Kdf5, but I never suggested anything about contact against an eligible receover who is no longer a potential blocker as being anything but illegal

Perhaps you should read what I write, rather than presuming you think you know what I mean. Absolutely nothing has changed, or morphed, between what I initially stated and what is correct, that as long as the receiver poses a blocking threat, contact initiated by the defense is perfectly legal if initiated before the pass is actually thrown.

Since there have never been two pass plays exactly the same, the judgment as to whether the offensive player did, or did not, constitute a blocking threat when contact was iniated is made, entirely, by the covering official.

I routinely include specific rule references to support most observations, other than the most rudimentary and basic. Forgive me for presuming you had such a grasp of the issues, I won't make that assumption again.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Ed: You're saying the receiver runs towards the defender then buttonhooks back towards the line of scrimmage? I guess I can't see a way it would be IUH since the defender's either going to have to hit him in the back or hit him from the side in which case he's not moving away.

Have to admit he is no longer a potential blocker as he is turned toward the LOS.

B might commit a BIB but if B executes a side block would you call it an IUH?

If you read the rule as written A is no longer a potential blocker and he is moving away.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Have to admit he is no longer a potential blocker as he is turned toward the LOS.

B might commit a BIB but if B executes a side block would you call it an IUH?

If you read the rule as written A is no longer a potential blocker and he is moving away.

My original vision of your play had B running up from behind a stationary A. I think your twist is you have contact initiated by B as A is still moving toward the LOS and B's catching up to him but I still say either B's going to BIB/IUH or he's going to catch up and be on the same yard line as A in which case you'd have to be there. Nice twist.

[Robert Goodman]

Funny, but I still read illegal use of hands as just that -- allowing the defense to block in any direction as long as they don't use their hands to do so -- and that they can use their hands only to ward off a blocker. I think we already had that discussion; we just parse that passage differently.

Robert in the Bronx

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

allowing the defense to block in any direction as long as they don't use their hands to do so -- and that they can use their hands only to ward off a blocker.
Robert in the Bronx

Under the NF code, NF:2.3.1-3 (legal blocking techniques) apply equally to both offensive and defensive players. 2.3.4 expands what an offensive player may "ALSO" do, while 2.3.5 covers those actions a defensive player may "ALSO" engage in.

NF: 2.3.5.a, advises, "A defensive player may ALSO; (a) Use unlocked hands, hand or arm to ward of an opponent who is blocking him or attempting to block him.". Those actions are in addition to his authority to use either blocking technique defined in 2.3.2.a or b.

A generally acceptable assessment of "attempting to block" includes movement of an opponent towards a defensive player in advance of a runner, that ends when that opponent occupies the same yard line (without threatening the defensive player) or advances past, or away from him.

In the example of a "button hook" type movement, that motion can either be an effort to move away from the defender, presumably to receive a possible pass, or simply could be an effort to block the defender's path to another position on the field, which reasonably fits the definition of "attempting to block".

As is usually the case, the ultimate deciding factor in whether the contact is legal, or not, rests in the judgment of the covering official based on what he has observed.

(Excuse me Robert, where in the Bronx?)

[JRutledge]

The bottom line this is completely a judgment call. In my opinion it takes a few years to get good at recognizing when the rules are truly violated. There is a lot of grey area in this call and there always will be. And when these plays are really close, I will remind a player not to do certain things or they were close. Then again you just have to see more plays and this play will become more obvious.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

(Excuse me Robert, where in the Bronx?)

1 block N of Pelham Pkwy. I grew up 1 block S of Pelham Pkwy.

[umpirebob71]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

1 block N of Pelham Pkwy. I grew up 1 block S of Pelham Pkwy.

You really get around, don't you?

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The bottom line this is completely a judgment call. In my opinion it takes a few years to get good at recognizing when the rules are truly violated. There is a lot of grey area in this call and there always will be. And when these plays are really close, I will remind a player not to do certain things or they were close. Then again you just have to see more plays and this play will become more obvious.

Peace

Have to agree with that. The Rules Committee tried to codify 'chucking' and left it up to interpretation, unfortunately, this is one of those plays that requires observation to effectively officiate it.