No Longer a Potential Blocker

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Then why was the quoted material so specific invoking use of the hands, rather than contact?

I deleted my post when I saw I'd written about the same 3 yrs. earlier, but now by quoting & replying I guess you've put the issue in play again.

[bigjohn]

HUH????

NFHS Case Book
BLOCKING – USE OF HANDS
9.2.3 SITUATION A

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then why was the quoted material so specific invoking use of the hands, rather than contact?

I deleted my post when I saw I'd written about the same 3 yrs. earlier, but now by quoting & replying I guess you've put the issue in play again.

So you are saying that a receiver is running a drag route across the middle and a LB can come and jump block into the receiver with his shoulder and knock them down and all is OK because they did not use their hands but used their shoulder?

Man, where are you guys getting these interpretations from?

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So you are saying that a receiver is running a drag route across the middle and a LB can come and jump block into the receiver with his shoulder and knock them down and all is OK because they did not use their hands but used their shoulder?

Man, where are you guys getting these interpretations from? :rolleyes

Where's the rule saying they can't?

This rule was traditionally understood as a limitation on use of the hands & arms, not a limitation on body blocking. This goes back to a time when the defense was allowed much more use of the hands than the offense, but that use of the hands was limited to warding off body blocks. The rules makers wanted to make clear that the privilege allowing use of the hands did not extend to cases where there was no block being warded off.

Where was the language inserted to make this apply to blocking or contact per se rather than use of the hands? If Fed didn't want the rule still to be understood as a limitation on use of the hands and arms alone, why is it still in 9-2, rather than part of 9-3? They've got this whole section right there concerning when you can't block, but no, this is in the section about when or how you can't use hands or arms.

[JRutledge]

Robert,

I think you need to look at your definitions and then get back to me one what the rules allow in this situation.

Peace

[bigjohn]

ART. 3 . . . A defensive player shall not:

d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.

I mean it says contact.

[bigjohn]

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?

My point was that it is not OPI unless there is a pass and it goes past the LOS.

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.

[Welpe]

Why do you still bother, Rut?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Why do you still bother, Rut?

Don't worry, I was kind of done already. Stupid and completely stupid at that.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

ART. 3 . . . A defensive player shall not:

d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.

I mean it says contact.

I don't have all the intervening years' rule books, but I'm pretty sure research will show that to have been an editing error when a previous phrase or clause saying "use hands or arms to" was deleted in favor of the current introductory language of that section. Why else would it be in the section on use of the hands instead of that on contact in general?

[bigjohn]

So pregame, I need to ask the R if his crew has read all the history of this rule so they know it is legal to contact an eligible downfield with shoulder or chest block as long as hands aren't involved, right? Contact in this case only means contact with hands. Ok.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

So pregame, I need to ask the R if his crew has read all the history of this rule so they know it is legal to contact an eligible downfield with shoulder or chest block as long as hands aren't involved, right? Contact in this case only means contact with hands. Ok.

Yawn.....

The R and his crew will walk right past you as you are spouting your assistant coach drivel.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by asdf

Yawn.....

The R and his crew will walk right past you as you are spouting your assistant coach drivel.

And in my case I would not even be in any conversations with a coach about this kind of nonsense. I would be in the middle of the field minding my own business. I am so glad I am no longer a regular Referee.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

So pregame, I need to ask the R if his crew has read all the history of this rule so they know it is legal to contact an eligible downfield with shoulder or chest block as long as hands aren't involved, right? Contact in this case only means contact with hands. Ok.

Reading TOO much into a rule can be as dangerous as not reading enough. Fortunately, NFHS has provided us with the Case Book, which is designed and intended to help clarify rules.

2011 Case Book reference 9-2-3-A addresses this issue, in detail, advising, "RULING"...A defender may legally contact an eligible receiver beyond the NZ before the pass is in flight. The contact may be a block (see NF: 2-3-1) or warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attampting 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.

The type of contact is not specified, nor limited to any specific manner of contact, or body part initiating the contact

As is so often the case, the deciding factor is the exclusive judgment of the covering official as to whether the eligible receiver was, or was not, a "blocking threat" as to whether actions by the defender were legal or illegal.

Many situations are incredibly similar, but no two situations are exactly alike and rule makers have, long ago decided, to grant exclusive authority to render such judgments to field officials ONLY.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Reading TOO much into a rule can be as dangerous as not reading enough. Fortunately, NFHS has provided us with the Case Book, which is designed and intended to help clarify rules.

2011 Case Book reference 9-2-3-A addresses this issue, in detail, advising, "RULING"...A defender may legally contact an eligible receiver beyond the NZ before the pass is in flight. The contact may be a block (see NF: 2-3-1) or warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attampting 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.

The type of contact is not specified, nor limited to any specific manner of contact, or body part initiating the contact

So you're saying that the "use hands in the manner described in this situation" is meant to apply only to "warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him", rather than to the entire sentence, which includes "may be a block"? I would say that'd be superfluous language then, because clearly if an opponent is not attempting to block you, you're not warding him off! And since it says the contact may be a block, as distinguished from an effort to ward off a block, clearly the case book is saying that the defense is allowed to make a block against an opponent who wasn't trying to block him first.

My collection of rule books, let alone committee proceedings or reports, is not sufficient to prove that this confusion arose as a result of an editing error, although some day I might get to the NY Public Library or get someone at Fed to help with the archives on this, but it helps if you know that there was a time when it was definitely clear that the rules makers wanted to restrict the defense from use of hands, but not body blocking, by defenders against potential receivers. The pros made it fairly clear in the 1980s when they changed that protection to include body blocks by adding the term "or body" to the previous "use of hands or arms" in the relevant article or section. However, just to show that previously to that they had maintained the distinction is this Supplemental Note from NFL's 1978 rules: "The promiscuous use of the hands by the defense, except as provided in Article 4, is illegal and is commonly used in lieu of a legal block (Article 5)." It wouldn't surprise me if that was mostly old language inherited from NCAA that the latter subsequently deleted; "promiscuous" looks like a word from an earlier era! (Article 4 referred to the then recently introduced chuck rule as an exception to the general prohibition on use of hands against an opponent not trying to block you; this was just a few years after use of the hands by the offense was liberalized, much to the aid of passing offense, so presumably they were giving a little compensation to pass defense.)

The Federation would probably have some remark somewhere the year they changed their rule to apply to all forms of contact, if indeed that's what they intended. I'd say the evidence given by the placement of that provision in the "use of hands" rather than the "contact" article is that they did not intend it to apply to all forms of contact.

I will note, however, that the play situation hardly ever comes up, because in the open field, the defender hardly ever wants to take a chance of being beaten by a receiver against an attempt at an old-fashioned, hands-close-to-the-body block -- hence the reference by NFL to "promiscuous use of hands by the defense...in lieu of a legal block". The likeliest situation I can think of is intercepting a receiver on a crossing route over the middle, when a defender without responsibility for coverage of that receiver might take the opp'ty to shoulder or crab block him.