When Did This Rule Go Into Effect

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

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

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by ajmc

...
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:

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Theisey

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.

No matter, it would be a BiB anyway.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Theisey

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:

Here's the important stuff from 9.2.3.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. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)

If the receiver is not attempting to block I don't see how a defender can legally contact that receiver "all the way down the field".

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Here's the important stuff from 9.2.3.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. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)

If the receiver is not attempting to block I don't see how a defender can legally contact that receiver "all the way down the field".

Let's look at NF: 2.3.1, "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker's body".

If there is contact between an offensive player, running north, against a defensive player retreating north (all the way down the field) is the offensive player "blocking" the defensive player, or is the defensive player "impeding" the receiver, up until the moment that either a forward pass is actually thrown, or the receiver moves in some direction away from the defender?

You might consider, the offensive player, presuming he was paying attention in the huddle, knows it's a pass play, the defender doesn't have the benefit of that advanced knowledge.

[Jim D.]

There seems to be a difference between the way the rule and the interpretation is written. In 9-2-3-a, the rule talks about not contacting a receiver who is no longer a POTENTIAL blocker. Case 9.2.3.A say if the receiver is not ATTEMPTING to block, it is illegal.

It seems to me a person can be a potential blocker without attempting to block by being is position between the defender and the runner.

[Jim D.]

We had a long discussion/argument on this play in a clinic last year. From a film clip, QB A1 is rolling right. Back A2 is heading out to the flat in advance of A1. Defensive player B1, on his way to tackle A1, goes through back A2. A2 was not attempting to block B1 and B1 was not really trying to impede A2, he just had to go through him to get to the runner.

According to the interpreter, this should be called on B1. I disagree as did many others.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

We had a long discussion/argument on this play in a clinic last year. From a film clip, QB A1 is rolling right. Back A2 is heading out to the flat in advance of A1. Defensive player B1, on his way to tackle A1, goes through back A2. A2 was not attempting to block B1 and B1 was not really trying to impede A2, he just had to go through him to get to the runner.

According to the interpreter, this should be called on B1. I disagree as did many others.

How close was A2 to A1? Was A2 running a route?

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

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.

Thanks for the calrification, Ed. What part of, "Once the receiver ceases to be a threat, going past or away from the defender, contacting that receiver can be defensive holding.", did you find ambiguous?

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Thanks for the calrification, Ed. What part of, "Once the receiver ceases to be a threat, going past or away from the defender, contacting that receiver can be defensive holding.", did you find ambiguous?

Actually, I did not find it ambiguous. Consider yourself of sufficient intellect and myself, consider we both do more than read the rule, that is we read the Case Book and maybe even the Redding Guide. The spirit and intent become clear, you cannot block an eligible receiver going out for a pass.

But there are some (my interpreter) who read the rule and cannot get past the wording, that is why it is ambiguous.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Actually, I did not find it ambiguous. Consider yourself of sufficient intellect and myself, consider we both do more than read the rule, that is we read the Case Book and maybe even the Redding Guide. The spirit and intent become clear, you cannot block an eligible receiver going out for a pass.

But there are some (my interpreter) who read the rule and cannot get past the wording, that is why it is ambiguous.

Is this another attempt to beat this, "Spirit and intent" thing to death to justify your personal interpretation? The statement, "you cannot block an eligible receiver going out for a pass", is simply over generalized, exaggerated and fundamentally WRONG.

No receiver has an absolute right to roam freely around the field, when there is ONLY a suspicion by the defense that a pass will be thrown. The receiver has a definite advantage in that he KNOWS the objective is to throw a pass, which is information the defensive player does not have, until the ball is actually thrown.

From that instant forward, you cannot block an eligible receiver going out for a pass as it violates NF 7.5.10 (forward pass Interference), but those restrictions do not apply for the defense until (NF: 7.5.8.b), "when the ball leaves the passer's hand".

A graphic example would be: Eigible A1 running due north, 10 yards beyond the LOS, B1 running due south towards A1 ( who is between B1 and runner A2, who is 15 yards away, still behind the LOS). B1 executes a legal block on
A1, knocking him to the ground, before A1 changes direction or moves away from the contact, before A2 is able to throw a pass. Absolutely legal and a good defensive play by B1.

The design of the rule is that until a pass is thrown, B1 can consider A1, in advance of a runner (a passer doesn't become a passer until he throws the ball) a potential threat to be a blocker. NF:9.2.3.d specifies, " A defensive player shall not; (d) contact an eligibal receiver who is no longer a potential blocker . Case Book 9.2.3.sit A further explains that, "A defender may legally contact an eligbile receiver beyond the NZ before the pass is inflight. The contact may be a block (Note NF: 2.3.1) or warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing ot pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attempting to block (again, note NF 2.3.1) OR has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use hands in the manner described."

The significant element is the covering official's judgment as to what he observes on THAT specific play. There is NO "one size fits all". If the defender is in a position where the receiver poses a threat to block him, he may legally initiate contact before the ball is thrown. If the threat has been removed, by the receiver going past, or away from the defender, contact is likely illegal.