No Longer a Potential Blocker

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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. .

Robert, I might suggest you re-read my 1st sentence, really carefully. ("Reading TOO much into a rule can be as dangerous as not reading enough).

As a game that interests participants between the ages of 6 and 60, distinctly different and targeted rules codes have evolved, that often addressing the same general circumstances, react quite differently to specific situations and talent levels. Trying to mingle, or justify, explanations at one level to apply to other levels, is a fool's game, and the game is a lot more logical when each rule code is applied, exclusively, to the level for which it was intended.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

As a game that interests participants between the ages of 6 and 60, distinctly different and targeted rules codes have evolved, that often addressing the same general circumstances, react quite differently to specific situations and talent levels. Trying to mingle, or justify, explanations at one level to apply to other levels, is a fool's game,

I don't think so, because the rules committees borrow heavily from each other -- and all the major codes started from a single one. Not only do they tend to lift language from each other, but also concerns, so that even when they aren't copying each other's wording, the trends propagate. See for instance the recent actions re horse collar tackling.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't think so, because the rules committees borrow heavily from each other -- and all the major codes started from a single one. Not only do they tend to lift language from each other, but also concerns, so that even when they aren't copying each other's wording, the trends propagate. See for instance the recent actions re horse collar tackling.

Robert, there's no question rules committees "borrow from each other" and adopt ideas and directions from one code to another, but when they do they specify how that idea, or direction, should be addressed within their particular code. You can't just always apply an explanation, or clarification from one code to another or always make the broad assumptions that these codes always "mean" the same thing, regardless of what they actually say.

[bigjohn]

ART. 4 . . . An offensive blocker is a player who is blocking or in position to
block by being between the potential tackler and the runner

and then there is this rule.

[APG]

No need to bump a 2+ year old thread.