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.

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?

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.

AJ, there's really no sense arguing with you. With your philosophy you wouldn't last very long on my crew.

End of discussion.

I'm not sure, Kdf5 whether you're seriously looking for an answer, or looking for an argument. I have no interest in parsing words with you and have been trying to explain, a pretty basic understanding. My apologies if I have not been clear enough for you.

Allow me to start, and try again. A defensive player may legally initiate contact with an opponent anywhere on the field, so long as it doesn't violate NF: 2.3.5 or 6.

The simple fact that any offensive player happens to qualify as an eligible receiver is totally immaterial as to what he can do, or can be done to him during a running play. Until someone actually throws a pass, the defense is entirely within it's rights to consider the play unfolding a running play, up to the instant a legal forward pass is actually thrown.

Until a legal forward pass is thrown, a defensive player is entitled to iniate contact with any opponent who is between him, and the runner, or until an opponent occupies the same yard line (without posing a blocking threat) or has run past the defender, or is running away from the defender.

If the defender is skilled enough to keep his opponent between him and the runner, whereas that opponent remains a potential blocker, until such runner becomes a passer, he can initiate contact legally over the entire length of a football field. The notion that an opponent, because of his eligibility to catch a forward pass, somehow allows him freedom from contact prior to a legal pass being thrown is absolute and utter nonsense, unless the receiver is judged, by the covering official, to no longer pose a blocking threat, by running past, or away from, the defender.

Other rule codes have applied additional restrictions, i.e. no contact after 5 yards, that DO NOT apply to NFHS rules.

Waltjp: I have no idea what your problem is, or what you find problematic with what I've said, but either I'm not getting my point across, or you're not paying attention to what I've said. If you'd care to be more specific, I'd be happy to address your concerns.

In the meantime, don't concern yourself with my being interested in applying to work on "your crew".

The problem with this rule is really quite simple. "Potential Blocker", just what the heck is that? It's not well defined anywhere in the book and we are stuck with only a case book play that presents a blatantly obvious example.
So, barring a clear directive from ones assoc, it's simply up to the covering official to decide when the defense has crossed that line between acceptable and non-acceptable contact. And that's why we get the big bucks. If B is in front of A, he can do just about any legal block. If they are side-by-side, realistically all I've ever seen is some incidental contact, but if B knocks A seriously off his path I probably have a foul. If A gets beyond B, 99.9% of the time B isn't going to be blocking anyway, he's going to be grabbing & holding. If A is clearly not acting like a blocker, for example Ed's buttonhook question, I don't know how you can possibly allow a B to just blast him no matter where he's coming from. Potential blockers rarely just stand there looking back at the QB.

'Tis but a flesh wound! :rolleyes: You've been clear enough - clearly wrong. I asked for you to cite rules twice but you've morphed so many times it's clear I'm not going to get an answer from you. It's pretty simple. It is illegal use of hands to contact an eligible receiver who's no longer a potential blocker. I hope, for the sake of the offensive team it never happens in front of you.

I really don't know what your problem is Kdf5, but I never suggested anything about contact against an eligible receover who is no longer a potential blocker as being anything but illegal

Perhaps you should read what I write, rather than presuming you think you know what I mean. Absolutely nothing has changed, or morphed, between what I initially stated and what is correct, that as long as the receiver poses a blocking threat, contact initiated by the defense is perfectly legal if initiated before the pass is actually thrown.

Since there have never been two pass plays exactly the same, the judgment as to whether the offensive player did, or did not, constitute a blocking threat when contact was iniated is made, entirely, by the covering official.

I routinely include specific rule references to support most observations, other than the most rudimentary and basic. Forgive me for presuming you had such a grasp of the issues, I won't make that assumption again.

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.

Funny, but I still read illegal use of hands as just that -- allowing the defense to block in any direction as long as they don't use their hands to do so -- and that they can use their hands only to ward off a blocker. I think we already had that discussion; we just parse that passage differently.

Robert in the Bronx

Under the NF code, NF:2.3.1-3 (legal blocking techniques) apply equally to both offensive and defensive players. 2.3.4 expands what an offensive player may "ALSO" do, while 2.3.5 covers those actions a defensive player may "ALSO" engage in.

NF: 2.3.5.a, advises, "A defensive player may ALSO; (a) Use unlocked hands, hand or arm to ward of an opponent who is blocking him or attempting to block him.". Those actions are in addition to his authority to use either blocking technique defined in 2.3.2.a or b.

A generally acceptable assessment of "attempting to block" includes movement of an opponent towards a defensive player in advance of a runner, that ends when that opponent occupies the same yard line (without threatening the defensive player) or advances past, or away from him.

In the example of a "button hook" type movement, that motion can either be an effort to move away from the defender, presumably to receive a possible pass, or simply could be an effort to block the defender's path to another position on the field, which reasonably fits the definition of "attempting to block".

As is usually the case, the ultimate deciding factor in whether the contact is legal, or not, rests in the judgment of the covering official based on what he has observed.

(Excuse me Robert, where in the Bronx?)

The bottom line this is completely a judgment call. In my opinion it takes a few years to get good at recognizing when the rules are truly violated. There is a lot of grey area in this call and there always will be. And when these plays are really close, I will remind a player not to do certain things or they were close. Then again you just have to see more plays and this play will become more obvious.

Peace

1 block N of Pelham Pkwy. I grew up 1 block S of Pelham Pkwy.

You really get around, don't you? :D

Have to agree with that. The Rules Committee tried to codify 'chucking' and left it up to interpretation, unfortunately, this is one of those plays that requires observation to effectively officiate it.

A Picture Is Worth A 1,000 Words
 

Going through my library found a copy of the 1996 Simplified and Illustrated. Curious, I went to 9-2-3d hopeful of finding an illustration of the rule, especially, being so many people have trouble interpreting this rule.

Sure enough, there it is and it uses the word "chucking" in the explanation.

Our Association does not supply the S&I anymore, does anyone have the 2008 copy and can you tell me if the picture of the linebacker chucking the receiver is there for 9-2-3d?

Thanks,

Pelham Pkwy was always a nice area, I hope it still is. I grew up in the Highbridge Section, just north of Yankee Stadium. Other than passing by on the train down to Penn Station or taking in an occasional ballgame at the Stadium, I haven't been back in years.

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.....

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

Peace

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

can't be opi until the ball is in the air can it?

Don't you have a case book JR?


NFHS Case Book
BLOCKING – USE OF HANDS
9.2.3 SITUATION A: End A1 sprints from the line and then cuts sharply toward
the middle of the field. A1 makes no attempt to block defensive back B1. B1 pursues
A1 and pushes him from the side using his open hands. Contact is made on
A1’s upper arm before the pass is thrown. A1 was moving away from B1 when
the contact occurred. RULING: Illegal use of hands by B1. 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. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a
potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)

Read more: http://www.coachhuey.com/index.cgi?b...#ixzz1wMoGnFv7

[QUOTE=bigjohn;844011]can't be opi until the ball is in the air can it?

Don't you have a case book JR?


Seriously?---you make THAT staement about OPI; and then ask JR if HE has a case book.

The rule book is pretty clear on OPI---how in the world do you get your interp?


At times (actually most of the time) the pettiness between the two of you is tough to take (however, kind of like a car accident---you just can't look away). The two of you have so much to add, based on your experiences, to the experience of high school football. Coaches and officials will ALWAYS interpret differently issues that aren't black and white. The game of football is filled with gray areas and situations that warrant judgement. Nature of the beast, nature of the game, nature of life.

Yes I have a rulebook, casebook, Simplified and Illustrated book, Handbook and teach football officiating to the largest class in the entire area for new football officials.

You obviously do not understand what that wording in read means. It does not mean any contact is illegal. It means that a player running at you is a potential blocker (this is in the S&I book BTW) and based on technique or lack of proper technique players tend to run at defenders and not try to get free or make it clear they are trying to get free. And most coaches do not understand the rule anyway and think a receiver can be hit in any way if they are in front of the defender (like on a drag route). I cannot wait for the first time someone calls a foul for this in the 7 on 7 leagues this summer (we run camps with these leagues). This is where common sense comes into play; we cannot assume the defender knows why someone is running at them. If the offense wants us to give them the benefit of the doubt, they better either look away from defender or run in a manner that is clear they are not blocking. If they cannot do that, then I am not going to assume they are running a route. I am going to call what is likely and what easily shows up on tape. I am not going to assume I know what the coach is trying to do or what the play actually was called in the huddle or on the sideline. As I said, it is rare that defenses are that close on receivers, they usually are several yards off the line and this is clear when a receiver is running a route and not blocking. But if it is close, I am not calling a penalty just like in other parts of the game, it has to be obvious.

Peace

I am a two time state final official at the back judge position. I worked my first game that set about 9 or 10 state records for passing and yardage and in that game I had several personal plays where I had to rule on contact down the field. I even had a Big Ten/National Championship Referee review the tape and give pointers and comments on a couple of calls where I called defensive holding and he felt should have been DPI.

My crew talks about this aspect of the game several times in pre-game and during gatherings about when or how to call these types of plays. It is not petty to discuss these situations or to bring up when OPI takes place in relationship to illegal use of hands (which is this actual penalty) for contact with an eligible receiver. And it is not uncommon to see one of these players get knocked down and the coach of the team or the player is complaining the opponent violated a rule. This is where we get paid the big bucks, we have to determine which happen or if anything happen. Now the problem with these discussions on the football board is we often talk in circles because we do not have the breath of video to add to the discussions. And until someone wants to take over the APG role on this site, we will discuss these issues. But I think coaches want things called without knowing all the circumstances that apply. And when receivers and DB/LB make contact we have a lot of things to consider. That is not going to change because a coach thinks one thing should not be called. He also thinks IG should be called more too, but it does not make him right.

Peace

Red?


ART. 7 . . . Pass interference restrictions only apply beyond the neutral zone
and only if the legal forward pass, untouched by B in or behind the neutral zone,
crosses the neutral zone. Pass interference restrictions are in effect for all A and
B players until the ball is touched or the pass is incomplete

Yes red.

Peace

I understand completely! We have a kid trying to release into a pattern, and the defense has walked a OLB over to knock him on his butt instead of let him get off. It is not called in our games. I am sure you do an excellent job of making sure no one gets an unfair advantage in this situation, Mr. Rutledge but where I am, it is considered just good ol' hard nosed football and if the WR can't get off the line it is just too bad and he needs to get in the weight room more.

Officials see more teams and games than you do as a coach. I have no idea what is called or why something is not called in your games. I know it gets called at times in games I am working and I am not the person that makes the calls in many cases either. And if not called when we can "talk to" players we try to do that on borderline situations. I know that it is called in other games I am not working as officials talk about situations that happen in their games. Now I cannot give you a percentage, but it gets called and when we see a coach at a game they often try to get us to talk about something that happens previously. Or they try to talk about something they saw on tape. All I am saying to you is there is nothing that suggest that this is inherently illegal or is interpreted that way. You cannot take one line out of the casebook and rulebook and then make a leap that some coverage is outlawed because it does not fit your sensibilities. That is not how rules are applied or interpreted by the NF committee or state organizations. If these groups felt the rule should be applied in all those situations, they would make that information public and clear. There is a reason you have never heard such interpretation anywhere.

Peace

The rule is about contact, not just hands. Let us not split hairs that fine to justify the rules application.

Peace

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.

HUH????

NFHS Case Book
BLOCKING – USE OF HANDS
9.2.3 SITUATION A

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:

Peace

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.

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

ART. 3 . . . A defensive player shall not:

d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.

I mean it says contact.

My point was that it is not OPI unless there is a pass and it goes past the LOS.

ART. 7 . . . Pass interference restrictions only apply beyond the neutral zone
and only if the legal forward pass, untouched by B in or behind the neutral zone,
crosses the neutral zone. Pass interference restrictions are in effect for all A and
B players until the ball is touched or the pass is incomplete.

Why do you still bother, Rut?

Don't worry, I was kind of done already. Stupid and completely stupid at that.

Peace

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?

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.

Yawn.....

The R and his crew will walk right past you as you are spouting your assistant coach drivel.

And in my case I would not even be in any conversations with a coach about this kind of nonsense. I would be in the middle of the field minding my own business. I am so glad I am no longer a regular Referee.

Peace

Reading TOO much into a rule can be as dangerous as not reading enough. Fortunately, NFHS has provided us with the Case Book, which is designed and intended to help clarify rules.

2011 Case Book reference 9-2-3-A addresses this issue, in detail, advising, "RULING"...A defender may legally contact an eligible receiver beyond the NZ before the pass is in flight. The contact may be a block (see NF: 2-3-1) or warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attampting to block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use hands in the manner described in this situation. It is clear that A1 is no longer a potential blocker on B1.

The type of contact is not specified, nor limited to any specific manner of contact, or body part initiating the contact

As is so often the case, the deciding factor is the exclusive judgment of the covering official as to whether the eligible receiver was, or was not, a "blocking threat" as to whether actions by the defender were legal or illegal.

Many situations are incredibly similar, but no two situations are exactly alike and rule makers have, long ago decided, to grant exclusive authority to render such judgments to field officials ONLY.

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.

My collection of rule books, let alone committee proceedings or reports, is not sufficient to prove that this confusion arose as a result of an editing error, although some day I might get to the NY Public Library or get someone at Fed to help with the archives on this, but it helps if you know that there was a time when it was definitely clear that the rules makers wanted to restrict the defense from use of hands, but not body blocking, by defenders against potential receivers. The pros made it fairly clear in the 1980s when they changed that protection to include body blocks by adding the term "or body" to the previous "use of hands or arms" in the relevant article or section. However, just to show that previously to that they had maintained the distinction is this Supplemental Note from NFL's 1978 rules: "The promiscuous use of the hands by the defense, except as provided in Article 4, is illegal and is commonly used in lieu of a legal block (Article 5)." It wouldn't surprise me if that was mostly old language inherited from NCAA that the latter subsequently deleted; "promiscuous" looks like a word from an earlier era! (Article 4 referred to the then recently introduced chuck rule as an exception to the general prohibition on use of hands against an opponent not trying to block you; this was just a few years after use of the hands by the offense was liberalized, much to the aid of passing offense, so presumably they were giving a little compensation to pass defense.)

The Federation would probably have some remark somewhere the year they changed their rule to apply to all forms of contact, if indeed that's what they intended. I'd say the evidence given by the placement of that provision in the "use of hands" rather than the "contact" article is that they did not intend it to apply to all forms of contact.

I will note, however, that the play situation hardly ever comes up, because in the open field, the defender hardly ever wants to take a chance of being beaten by a receiver against an attempt at an old-fashioned, hands-close-to-the-body block -- hence the reference by NFL to "promiscuous use of hands by the defense...in lieu of a legal block". The likeliest situation I can think of is intercepting a receiver on a crossing route over the middle, when a defender without responsibility for coverage of that receiver might take the opp'ty to shoulder or crab block him.

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.

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.

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. :p

No need to bump a 2+ year old thread.