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.

[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.