When Did This Rule Go Into Effect

[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

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by dumbref

Jim - Is this your play?

YouTube - Defensive Pers Foul ?

No, it was a HS game. It was somewhat similar to this except it was not a block in the back and it wasn't as hard a hit, but the basic play was the same - a defender running through a potential receiver/blocker to get to the ball carrier.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

No, it was a HS game. It was somewhat similar to this except it was not a block in the back and it wasn't as hard a hit, but the basic play was the same - a defender running through a potential receiver/blocker to get to the ball carrier.

You might suggest your interpreter review NF: 2.3.5.b which indicates a defensive player may also: (b) "Push, pull or ward off an opponent in an actual attempt to get at the runner or a loose ball if such contact is not pass interference, a personal foul or illegal use of the hands.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You might suggest your interpreter review NF: 2.3.5.b which indicates a defensive player may also: (b) "Push, pull or ward off an opponent in an actual attempt to get at the runner or a loose ball if such contact is not pass interference, a personal foul or illegal use of the hands.

A2 might have been a potential blocker but if he's not attempting to block then pushing A2 to get to A1 is illegal use of hands isn't it?