No Longer a Potential Blocker

[Ed Hickland]

There has been an ongoing discussion about this phrase from NFHS 9-2-3d.

Last season my LJ told a player he could not chuck a receiver downfield. The player's coach after the game told me he thought his player could contact the receiver all the way down field. The coach subsequently called the interpreter who agreed with the coach.

At the next general meeting there was a loud debate about this subject.

My position was NFHS 9-2-3d and 9.2.3 Situation A firmly prohibit B from contacting A when "he is no longer a potential blocker." Somehow the interpreter construed this to mean this was pass interference but agreed with my position on the rule and case book. My position is as long as the ball is not in the air B cannot contact A and the foul is illegal use of hands.

Interested in hearing how others interpret this.

[sloth]

To quote another official I respect a great deal "don't try to be a pioneer".

There has been a clear evolution of the rules into a practical application in game situations. If the NFHS (or state governing body) has an issue with that evolution they will issue a point of emphesis to stress the origional intent of the specific rule.

To look for enforcemnets that are outside the common practice of the game, even if they abide by the letter of the rule, is looking for trouble (in my humble opinion).

[kdf5]

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.....

[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.

[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.

[bigjohn]

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.....

[JRutledge]

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

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

My position is as long as the ball is not in the air B cannot contact A and the foul is illegal use of hands.

Interested in hearing how others interpret this.

Semantics can create a lot of unnecessary trouble, especially when taken out of context. Case Book 9.2.3.A specifically relates to a receiver cutting away from a defender, pursued and pushed by a defender as the receiver is moving away. Of course this situation is illegal use of the hands, but is not the situation described in the original question.

NF:9.2.3.d is not complicated; "A defensive player shall not (d): Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker". Obviously, the key is what is determined by what "no longer a potential blocker" means.

That has long been understood to mean, any offensive player between a runner and a defensive player is a potential blocker. Before a passer actually throws a football, he is a runner, and every offensive player between that runner and every defensive player is a potential blocker, and therefore can be legally contacted before the ball is actually thrown.

As long as the defensive player can keep his opponent between him and the runner, all the way to the end line, he can consider the opponent a "potential blocker", and legally initiate contact. As the case book points out, when the offensive player moves away from, or past, the defender the threat he poses, as a potential blocker, evaporates as does the protection the defensive player enjoys from contecting him.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Semantics can create a lot of unnecessary trouble, especially when taken out of context. Case Book 9.2.3.A specifically relates to a receiver cutting away from a defender, pursued and pushed by a defender as the receiver is moving away. Of course this situation is illegal use of the hands, but is not the situation described in the original question.

NF:9.2.3.d is not complicated; "A defensive player shall not (d): Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker". Obviously, the key is what is determined by what "no longer a potential blocker" means.

That has long been understood to mean, any offensive player between a runner and a defensive player is a potential blocker. Before a passer actually throws a football, he is a runner, and every offensive player between that runner and every defensive player is a potential blocker, and therefore can be legally contacted before the ball is actually thrown.

As long as the defensive player can keep his opponent between him and the runner, all the way to the end line, he can consider the opponent a "potential blocker", and legally initiate contact. As the case book points out, when the offensive player moves away from, or past, the defender the threat he poses, as a potential blocker, evaporates as does the protection the defensive player enjoys from contecting him.

The key is not about potential blockers. 9-2-3d talks about contacting eligible receivers. If A1 is an eligible receiver he can't be contacted if "the receiver is not attempting to block or has gone past or is moving away". The original play does indeed talk about "chucking a receiver downfield". You need to distinguish between "potential blockers" and "potential blockers who are eligible receivers".

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

You need to distinguish between "potential blockers" and "potential blockers who are eligible receivers".

Perhaps there is a difference at other levels of the game, but at the NFHS level there is no difference, all offensive players, other than a runner, are potential blockers and potential receivers don't become potential receivers until a forward pass is thrown.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

....and potential receivers don't become potential receivers until a forward pass is thrown.

Where did you get that? If you can cite a rule I'd like to see it. YOU quoted 9-2-3d. It talks about eligible receivers, not potential receivers. Eligible receivers are defined in 7-5-6. I don't think I've seen the term potential receivers anywhere. A potential blocker can be contacted as much as a defender wants to, within the rules, but an eligible receiver who's a potential blocker is going to receive some protection and can't be contacted "all the way to the end line" if he's not attempting to block or moving past or away from the defender. Am I flagging B if he's running side by side with A and A's not blocking B? Probably not unless B's actions are pretty egregious.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

...As long as the defensive player can keep his opponent between him and the runner, all the way to the end line, he can consider the opponent a "potential blocker", and legally initiate contact. As the case book points out, when the offensive player moves away from, or past, the defender the threat he poses, as a potential blocker, evaporates as does the protection the defensive player enjoys from contecting him.

Understand your point. If the point of attack is progressing downfield it is a valid point.Consider, A's QB is either fading back or even standing still and the eligible receiver is on a post route. A comes even with B and they run stride for stride. Can B bump A?According ot what was just written A is still a "potential blocker."

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Can B bump A?According ot what was just written A is still a "potential blocker."

Like a lot of other things, that is 100% up to the judgment of the covering official who must determine if the receiver still constitutes a threat, of blocking the defender, or not.

Remember, only the receiver knows what route he is running, all the defender can do is react to what the receiver does and some receivers are really good at sending false signals to deceive defenders.

Whether the potential passer is moving, standing still or fading back is totally immaterial, because until he throws a pass, he is a runner. It's also doubtful that in many, if not most instances, the downfield defender's primary focus is on the potential passers directional movements.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Understand your point. If the point of attack is progressing downfield it is a valid point.Consider, A's QB is either fading back or even standing still and the eligible receiver is on a post route. A comes even with B and they run stride for stride. Can B bump A?According ot what was just written A is still a "potential blocker."

The way I picture your scenario, if they are "even", he is no longer a potential blocker. A blocker does not try to get even, he wants to stay between the defender and the ball.

If they are even and B intentionally contacts A, I'm more than likely gonna flag it.

Gotta be there to say for sure.