When Did This Rule Go Into Effect

[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?

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

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

A2 was about 5 to 7 yards away from A1. I think he was running a route but I don't think B was trying to figure that out. B just was trying to get to A1 and pushed A2 aside in an attempt. This all happened at or behind the line.

In this play B was not trying to disrupt or hinder A2's route, he was going for the runner and A2 was in the way. The question is does this rule give a potential receiver special rights to run an unimpeded route or not? Some of us said "no" and some thought "yes". The interpreter said "yes", but I honestly think he's wrong on this one. As long as a player is between a defender and the runner, he is a potential blocker, even if he's looking back to the runner.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

A2 was about 5 to 7 yards away from A1. I think he was running a route but I don't think B was trying to figure that out. B just was trying to get to A1 and pushed A2 aside in an attempt. This all happened at or behind the line.

In this play B was not trying to disrupt or hinder A2's route, he was going for the runner and A2 was in the way. The question is does this rule give a potential receiver special rights to run an unimpeded route or not? Some of us said "no" and some thought "yes". The interpreter said "yes", but I honestly think he's wrong on this one. As long as a player is between a defender and the runner, he is a potential blocker, even if he's looking back to the runner.

That is a tough call, that's why we get the big bucks.

B is allowed to push an A out of the way to get to the runner and in that case A is actually a blocker as he is impeding the path to the runner. I would think of it as a screen in basketball.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

A2 was about 5 to 7 yards away from A1. I think he was running a route but I don't think B was trying to figure that out. B just was trying to get to A1 and pushed A2 aside in an attempt. This all happened at or behind the line.

In this play B was not trying to disrupt or hinder A2's route, he was going for the runner and A2 was in the way. The question is does this rule give a potential receiver special rights to run an unimpeded route or not? Some of us said "no" and some thought "yes". The interpreter said "yes", but I honestly think he's wrong on this one. As long as a player is between a defender and the runner, he is a potential blocker, even if he's looking back to the runner.

I tend to be more of a literalist when it comes to the rules so I go back to the case book's definition where it says he's no longer a potential blocker OR he's not attempting to block. It seems A2 falls into the latter category. Tickcy tack? Had to be there? Righteous call?

Ed: a defensive player can push an opponent to get to the ball or runner as long as it's not illegal use of hands, which is the play in question.

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

A2 was about 5 to 7 yards away from A1. I think he was running a route but I don't think B was trying to figure that out. B just was trying to get to A1 and pushed A2 aside in an attempt. This all happened at or behind the line.

In this play B was not trying to disrupt or hinder A2's route, he was going for the runner and A2 was in the way. The question is does this rule give a potential receiver special rights to run an unimpeded route or not? Some of us said "no" and some thought "yes". The interpreter said "yes", but I honestly think he's wrong on this one. As long as a player is between a defender and the runner, he is a potential blocker, even if he's looking back to the runner.

Jim - Is this your play?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfOXJHkFxwc