A Picture Is Worth A 1,000 Words
 

Going through my library found a copy of the 1996 Simplified and Illustrated. Curious, I went to 9-2-3d hopeful of finding an illustration of the rule, especially, being so many people have trouble interpreting this rule.

Sure enough, there it is and it uses the word "chucking" in the explanation.

Our Association does not supply the S&I anymore, does anyone have the 2008 copy and can you tell me if the picture of the linebacker chucking the receiver is there for 9-2-3d?

Thanks,

Pelham Pkwy was always a nice area, I hope it still is. I grew up in the Highbridge Section, just north of Yankee Stadium. Other than passing by on the train down to Penn Station or taking in an occasional ballgame at the Stadium, I haven't been back in years.

Bringing this back up. Why would the guideline be even or moving away? As long as the receiver is not trying to block the defender he is not a potential blocker according to this official NFHS situation interpretation, no?




9.2.3 Sit A: ...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.....

Not only is this an old thread, but I am kind of confused. Did the rule change?

Peace

Jeff, it came up on the coaches' site and I did a search and found this thread. I still think the NFHS says you can't play bump unless the offense is trying to collision you first. Keeping an eligible receiver from getting off is the way many defensive coordinators teach their coverage and it is illegal in NFHS rules. It is IUH and is seldom called that way.

Says who? Just because you say it is illegal, does not make it so. I have never been given an interpretation that playing bump coverage is illegal by anyone. Not from the NF and not from my state. If a defender is face up with receiver off the line, then they are a potential blocker. And if that coverage is played most of a game, at the HS level for sure there are going to be a lot of running plays even in a spread offense. The reality is that I do not see this coverage very often because it is very risky. If the receiver gets around them, they probably are going to run free. But to say it is never called is also silly. My crew called this when it happens often and we warned when it was borderline and we worked more than one state final together.

What you want is us to get in the minds of everyone and make calls based on that premise. It is also illegal for the offense to push off or to use contact to get free as well when they know their route or where they are going. Why would you not suggest that OPI is taking place during these situations too?

This comes back to why we really have to be careful to listen to coaches about what rules to apply. Coaches think everything they see is illegal when they do not understand why a rule was created and probably has no idea of all the interpretations that have been given over the years as well. Because if there is contact between a defender and a receiver, you have to determine who caused it and if there was any advantage of any kind or affected the play. If you call simple contact, you will be ripped for not using common sense or being too technical.

Peace

can't be opi until the ball is in the air can it?

Don't you have a case book JR?


NFHS Case Book
BLOCKING – USE OF HANDS
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)

Read more: http://www.coachhuey.com/index.cgi?b...#ixzz1wMoGnFv7

[QUOTE=bigjohn;844011]can't be opi until the ball is in the air can it?

Don't you have a case book JR?


Seriously?---you make THAT staement about OPI; and then ask JR if HE has a case book.

The rule book is pretty clear on OPI---how in the world do you get your interp?


At times (actually most of the time) the pettiness between the two of you is tough to take (however, kind of like a car accident---you just can't look away). The two of you have so much to add, based on your experiences, to the experience of high school football. Coaches and officials will ALWAYS interpret differently issues that aren't black and white. The game of football is filled with gray areas and situations that warrant judgement. Nature of the beast, nature of the game, nature of life.

Yes I have a rulebook, casebook, Simplified and Illustrated book, Handbook and teach football officiating to the largest class in the entire area for new football officials.

You obviously do not understand what that wording in read means. It does not mean any contact is illegal. It means that a player running at you is a potential blocker (this is in the S&I book BTW) and based on technique or lack of proper technique players tend to run at defenders and not try to get free or make it clear they are trying to get free. And most coaches do not understand the rule anyway and think a receiver can be hit in any way if they are in front of the defender (like on a drag route). I cannot wait for the first time someone calls a foul for this in the 7 on 7 leagues this summer (we run camps with these leagues). This is where common sense comes into play; we cannot assume the defender knows why someone is running at them. If the offense wants us to give them the benefit of the doubt, they better either look away from defender or run in a manner that is clear they are not blocking. If they cannot do that, then I am not going to assume they are running a route. I am going to call what is likely and what easily shows up on tape. I am not going to assume I know what the coach is trying to do or what the play actually was called in the huddle or on the sideline. As I said, it is rare that defenses are that close on receivers, they usually are several yards off the line and this is clear when a receiver is running a route and not blocking. But if it is close, I am not calling a penalty just like in other parts of the game, it has to be obvious.

Peace

I am a two time state final official at the back judge position. I worked my first game that set about 9 or 10 state records for passing and yardage and in that game I had several personal plays where I had to rule on contact down the field. I even had a Big Ten/National Championship Referee review the tape and give pointers and comments on a couple of calls where I called defensive holding and he felt should have been DPI.

My crew talks about this aspect of the game several times in pre-game and during gatherings about when or how to call these types of plays. It is not petty to discuss these situations or to bring up when OPI takes place in relationship to illegal use of hands (which is this actual penalty) for contact with an eligible receiver. And it is not uncommon to see one of these players get knocked down and the coach of the team or the player is complaining the opponent violated a rule. This is where we get paid the big bucks, we have to determine which happen or if anything happen. Now the problem with these discussions on the football board is we often talk in circles because we do not have the breath of video to add to the discussions. And until someone wants to take over the APG role on this site, we will discuss these issues. But I think coaches want things called without knowing all the circumstances that apply. And when receivers and DB/LB make contact we have a lot of things to consider. That is not going to change because a coach thinks one thing should not be called. He also thinks IG should be called more too, but it does not make him right.

Peace

Red?


ART. 7 . . . Pass interference restrictions only apply beyond the neutral zone
and only if the legal forward pass, untouched by B in or behind the neutral zone,
crosses the neutral zone. Pass interference restrictions are in effect for all A and
B players until the ball is touched or the pass is incomplete

Yes red.

Peace

I understand completely! We have a kid trying to release into a pattern, and the defense has walked a OLB over to knock him on his butt instead of let him get off. It is not called in our games. I am sure you do an excellent job of making sure no one gets an unfair advantage in this situation, Mr. Rutledge but where I am, it is considered just good ol' hard nosed football and if the WR can't get off the line it is just too bad and he needs to get in the weight room more.

Officials see more teams and games than you do as a coach. I have no idea what is called or why something is not called in your games. I know it gets called at times in games I am working and I am not the person that makes the calls in many cases either. And if not called when we can "talk to" players we try to do that on borderline situations. I know that it is called in other games I am not working as officials talk about situations that happen in their games. Now I cannot give you a percentage, but it gets called and when we see a coach at a game they often try to get us to talk about something that happens previously. Or they try to talk about something they saw on tape. All I am saying to you is there is nothing that suggest that this is inherently illegal or is interpreted that way. You cannot take one line out of the casebook and rulebook and then make a leap that some coverage is outlawed because it does not fit your sensibilities. That is not how rules are applied or interpreted by the NF committee or state organizations. If these groups felt the rule should be applied in all those situations, they would make that information public and clear. There is a reason you have never heard such interpretation anywhere.

Peace

The rule is about contact, not just hands. Let us not split hairs that fine to justify the rules application.

Peace