Hey guys, chew on this!

No longer a potential blocker. Well, if you think about it, an eligible receiver is restricted from blocking downfield and if he does block and a pass is thrown, a haha moment, offensive pass interference.

Therefore, if an eligible receiver is indeed on a pass pattern he is "no longer a potential blocker."

Of course, only the offense knows that he is an eligible receiver and not a defender at this point. The defender still sees him as a potential blocker so he can legally contact him until the ball is thrown.

Did I strike a nerve Theisey? You're absolutely right, I don't know a thing about "your crew", or, " the way we operate" but YOUR comment, "and I know they use that rule/definition (NCAA) in our high school games", was not the smartest or most assuring thing you've offered, unless of course you work HS games in Texas or Mass., in which case the NCAA code would be appropriate.

There are different rules for different levels, and if you choose to work different levels, congratulations, but it's your responsibility to apply the appropriate rule to the level your working, even though it might be somewhat inconvenient to deal with multiple codes.

Hey ajmc, Theisey made an excellent point. Think about it. NFHS puts out a publication listing rules differences between NCAA and NFHS and if you notice NFHS 9-2-3d is not on that list which means there is agreement on this rule. However, the wording of the rule is different between the codes and that is largely because NFHS has a philosophy to keep the rule book as simple and concise as possible.

For this one rule NCAA code does a much better and clearer explanation. In fact, there are a number of rules where the NCAA verbose wordings work well in helping to understand the rules.

Nowhere did Theisey say the crew enforced different rules but they do use the NCAA wording to explain the rules.

Quite frankly I have a problem with officials who live in a cocoon with the rules. These days we are often confronted with "Sunday" or "Saturday" rules and the more you understand the similarities and differences and can explain them, the better official you are.

I agree with this statement.

Thanks for adding your $0.02 Ed. I do understand that there are far more similarities and things in common between rule codes than there are differences.

I guess the point, I apparently didn't make clear enough, is I just didn't understand there being any value to adding the extra language of the NCAA code, where it doesn't appear to make any relevant difference to any rational interpretation.

It doesn't seem to matter very much which interprertation guides your thought process when the definitions mean exactly the same thing. Adding NCAA verbiage often seems a long way around to an objective of, "as simple and concise as possible" or even less confusing

I've seen cases where NCAA or NFL had added language in an apparent attempt to clarify what was there already, and left things just as unclear and subject to judgement as Fed's shorter wording. For a long time NCAA incorporated an entire "Football Interpretations" book (cross-referenced to the rules), originally independently written & published, as official, and the combination was of uneven quality -- in some cases redundant, ISTR at least one case flatly contradictory as I saw it, and in many instances lacking where you'd've expected clarif'n. If you looked back over the history of NCAA's football rules, it was apparent to me that in some cases Fed (starting with NCAA's book) deliberately deleted words or passages in their own effort to clarify, which was more successful.

Disclaimer: I've hardly glanced at a Fed rule book that came out in the past quarter century, so Fed may have messed things up a good deal over that time.

Robert in the Bronx