The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 01, 2009, 10:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,130
When Did This Rule Go Into Effect

Does anyone know when NFHS rule 9-2-3d -- A defensive player shall not contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker -- was put in the rule book?
__________________
Ed Hickland, MBA, CCP
[email protected]
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 01, 2009, 10:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Forever evidently. I don't find record of it being changed in the rule changes at Football.Refs.org.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 02, 2009, 10:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef View Post
Forever evidently. I don't find record of it being changed in the rule changes at Football.Refs.org.

I've been convinced, for years, that somehow the NFHS sneaks things into the rule book that wasn't there in previous years. What truly amazes me is how they're able to sneak into my house and change all the copies of the older books I keep for reference.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 02, 2009, 10:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
It was an editorial change in 1991. Those words appeared as rule 9-2-3-e. They did not exist in the 1990 book.

Why?, some coach trying to say this is new?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 02, 2009, 01:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theisey View Post
It was an editorial change in 1991. Those words appeared as rule 9-2-3-e. They did not exist in the 1990 book.

Why?, some coach trying to say this is new?
Even worse, in fact, unbelieveable. Our interpreter is saying this rule does not prevent a defender from blocking a receiver running his route and that our association has been not been calling that for the last 20 years.

So when my LJ cautions a player, he tells his coach, who asks me what rule tells him a defender cannot block an eligible receiver all the way downfield, when I don't agree the coach calls the interpreter and tells him we don't know the rules.

I found a 1996 reference in the comic book with an illustration and he still agrees with the coach.
__________________
Ed Hickland, MBA, CCP
[email protected]
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 02, 2009, 03:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
Well, that sucks Ed.
I'd say it would be time to go over his head and contact the State interpreter for his thoughts. Of course cc: your local guy.. maybe he'll learn something.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 02, 2009, 03:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Hickland View Post
Even worse, in fact, unbelieveable. Our interpreter is saying this rule does not prevent a defender from blocking a receiver running his route and that our association has been not been calling that for the last 20 years.

So when my LJ cautions a player, he tells his coach, who asks me what rule tells him a defender cannot block an eligible receiver all the way downfield, when I don't agree the coach calls the interpreter and tells him we don't know the rules.

I found a 1996 reference in the comic book with an illustration and he still agrees with the coach.
Might it be the way you are phrasing the question. No rule does, "prevent a defender from blocking a receiver running his route", up to and including that point that the received poses a blocking threat to the defender. Once the receiver ceases to be a threat, going past or away from the defender, contacting that receiver can be defensive holding.

If the defensive player is skilled enough to keep the receiver between himself and the ball, all the way down the field, he can legally initiate contact on the receiver, because the receiver still constitutes a blocking threat, up until the point a forward pass is actually thrown
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 02, 2009, 05:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
...
If the defensive player is skilled enough to keep the receiver between himself and the ball, all the way down the field, he can legally initiate contact on the receiver, because the receiver still constitutes a blocking threat, up until the point a forward pass is actually thrown
If there is such a player, he should be in the NFL right now.. However, they have a five-yard chuck rule, so his skills are useless.

So lets be realistic, once a receiver has in essence cut/turned away from the defender he is no longer a potential blocker even if he is between the ball and the defender. What ever coach or official is saying otherwise maybe should sign up for the A-11 league.

Look at CB play 9.2.3 Sit A:
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 02, 2009, 05:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
Might it be the way you are phrasing the question. No rule does, "prevent a defender from blocking a receiver running his route", up to and including that point that the received poses a blocking threat to the defender. Once the receiver ceases to be a threat, going past or away from the defender, contacting that receiver can be defensive holding.

If the defensive player is skilled enough to keep the receiver between himself and the ball, all the way down the field, he can legally initiate contact on the receiver, because the receiver still constitutes a blocking threat, up until the point a forward pass is actually thrown
Well, not quite.

If you read the rule it states when it he is "no longer a potential blocker." That is somewhat ambiguous. If you look at the proposal to the rules committee what it means is when the eligible receiver is even with or past the defender he can no longer contact the receiver. And, if you have a Simplified and Illustrated the intent of the rule becomes painfully clear.

The penalty is illegal use of hands.
__________________
Ed Hickland, MBA, CCP
[email protected]

Last edited by Ed Hickland; Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:37pm. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASA Rule 8-5-H EFFECT Example Welpe Softball 7 Thu Jun 19, 2008 07:23pm
when does the look-back-rule go into effect after a hit batter BuggBob Softball 17 Wed May 07, 2008 01:01pm
NCAA BOO effect CecilOne Softball 10 Tue Mar 07, 2006 09:35am
Force Still In Effect? chuckfan1 Baseball 17 Thu Nov 10, 2005 06:54pm
Did It effect the Play? PeteBooth Baseball 10 Thu Feb 15, 2001 05:11pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:52am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1