No Longer a Potential Blocker

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[bigjohn]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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