No Longer a Potential Blocker
 

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.

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).

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.....

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".

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.

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."

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.

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.

You need to rethink this. If B is blocking, chucking or otherwise inhibiting A's ability to run a pattern once it's established that A is not a threat to block because the ball hasn't yet been thrown you're giving B a huge advantage. The very reason the ball may not be thrown is because of B's action against the player trying to run his pass route.

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.

My point. Know as the R sometimes with a scrambling QB you see the decisions going through his mind as he looks down field. If B is inhibiting an A he will look away and may get sacked because of B's action down field. In other words, B's illegal contact may give B a huge advantage.

One youth "coach" told me this past season they were going to bump receivers off their routes to which my reply was be prepared to see my flag.

As Kdf5 points out there is no definition of a "potential" receiver, because NOBODY is a receiver until a ball is actually thrown. Eligibility rules have nothing to do with what happens before a pass is thrown and simply identifies who is allowed to catch a pass "IF" a pass is thrown.

NF: 2.3.5 explains what a defensive player is allowed to do, (a) provides him the authority to "ward off an opponent who is blocking him or is attempting to block him." Keep in mind "B" has no advance knowledge of what type of play is unfolding and the basic premis is, that until the ball is actually thrown, every opponent between the defensive player and the runner (who may or may not subsequently become a passer) is a potential blocker and the defender has every right to defend himself, all the way to the end line, which is different than other rule codes.

NF: 7.5.6 clearly indicates, "Pass eligibility rules apply only to a legal forward pass." Until the pass is thrown, eligibility is not a relevant factor.

Suggesting that a player, because he wears a certain number and has assumed a certain position satisfying eligibility requirements is afforded added protections and enjoys some special right of way to run patterns, simply does not exist at the NFHS level. Until an offensive player, eligible or not, ceases to be a blocking threat by running past, or away, from a defender before a legal pass is actually thrown, is fair game for a legal block from a defender. If the defender holds or otherwise illegally impedes an opponent, who is not a threat, is a different story.

As for advantage, the offense enjoys the biggest unfair advantage in that they know ahead of time whether or not a pass might be thrown. If the defender initiates contact while the opponent is between him and the passer, before the opponent occupies the same line, or is moving away from the defender he is totally within his rights, and the NFHS rules, in doing so. You should not be flagging bumping potential receivers, when it's done properly.

That may not be the case with other rules codes which include additional restrictions and considerations. However those restrictions and considerations are not applicable to NFHS contests.

But YOU'RE the one who stated there ARE potential receivers. Now you point out there is no definition.

Eligibility rules deal with legal forward passes as opposed to an illegal forward pass. Nowhere does it say eligibility is conditional. Please cite your rule (2nd request for a rule citing).

Not according to the Case Book. See page 65. 9.2.3.A: "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".

What about 7-5-6d: A player who is eligible at the start of the down remains eligible throughout the down. You're saying his eligibility is retroactive IF a pass is thrown which is not what 7-5-6d says.

7-5-6d says there are players who are eligible at the start of the down. 7-5-6a says there are eligible receivers by position and number and they are afforded protection as in 9-2-3d.

Now you're getting it. However, you said you can bump him all the way to the end line which is clearly against the Case Book.

Because you say so? You haven't proved it. You say up above that it is "different than other rule codes". Now you say it may not be the case. Which is it?

We have always used this as our guideline.