When Did This Rule Go Into Effect

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

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?

Absolutely not. Illegal use of the hands is defined by NF: 9.2, and 9.2.3 focuses on what "a defensive player shall not" do.

NF: 2.3.5.b, specifically authorizes a defensive player to "play through" an offensive player who is "obstructing" him from doing his primary job of stopping an oposing "runner". Although 9.2 (Illegal use of the Hands & Holding) applies to all players, the primary focus of these prohibitions is targeted at offensive players, because "blocking" is essentially an offensive action. (I understand there are exceptions that apply specifically to certain dedensive actions, but let's not muddy the water).

If the defense was prohibited from "playing through" an opponent to take action against a runner, offensive teams could encircle a runner and escort him down the length of the field. Once the offensive player takes ANY position between a defensive player and a runner, he is a potential blocker (no matter what he's doing, or might intend to do, which makes him an obstacle that the defense has every right to (legally) eliminate.

[kdf5]

2-3-5b says he can play through as long as he doesn't commit the foul of IUH. 9-2-3d defines IUH as contacting a receiver who's no longer a potential blocker. 9.2.3.A says it's IUH to contact a receiver who's no longer a potential blocker OR (not AND) who is not attempting to block. If A2 is not looking at B1 then A2 is not attempting to block. If B1 flattens A2 he has committed IUH by contacting a receiver who is not attempting to block. Any answer other than that by you IS muddied water.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by kdf5

2-3-5b says he can play through as long as he doesn't commit the foul of IUH. 9-2-3d defines IUH as contacting a receiver who's no longer a potential blocker. 9.2.3.A says it's IUH to contact a receiver who's no longer a potential blocker OR (not AND) who is not attempting to block. If A2 is not looking at B1 then A2 is not attempting to block. If B1 flattens A2 he has committed IUH by contacting a receiver who is not attempting to block. Any answer other than that by you IS muddied water.

KDF5,


In this play is A2:

A potential blocker? Yes, by his position between the defender and the runner he is in position to impede B's path to the runner if he decides to.
or
Attempting to block B? No, he's looking away from B and probably has no intention of blocking B.

Since, as you stated, it's an "OR" question and not an "AND" condition; as long as either answer is "Yes", B can legal contact and play through receiver A2.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

KDF5,


In this play is A2:

A potential blocker? Yes, by his position between the defender and the runner he is in position to impede B's path to the runner if he decides to.
or
Attempting to block B? No, he's looking away from B and probably has no intention of blocking B.

Since, as you stated, it's an "OR" question and not an "AND" condition; as long as either answer is "Yes", B can legal contact and play through receiver A2.

Not true, Jim. 9.2.3.A says you CAN'T contact a receiver who is not attempting to block. Either statement can stand on its own. You don't need to satisfy both conditions to keep from blocking

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Not true, Jim. 9.2.3.A says you CAN'T contact a receiver who is not attempting to block. Either statement can stand on its own. You don't need to satisfy both conditions to keep from blocking

I'm afraid kdf5, you're allowing verbiage and your interpretation of language to get in the way of understanding the game. let me try a different approach.

I can't find any definition of "A receiver" in NFHS rule 2, or anywhere else other than reference to "eligible receivers" in rule 7, Section 5.

However, NF 7.5.6 which identifies the eligible receivers begins with the statement, "Pass eleigibility rules apply only to a legal forward pass", which makes sense because nobody can be a receiver unless, or until, a forward pass is thrown.

In the play we're discussing there is no forward pass, there is simply a run, during which a defensive player pursuing the runner initiates contact with an opponent, who may or may not ever be a "potential receiver" regardless of the fact he may be wearing an eligible receiver's number and was lined up either on the end of the line, or as a back, when the ball was snapped.

I'm not sure which rule you were referencing, but it's not NF: 9.2.3.a that states, "says it's IUH to contact a receiver who's no longer a potential blocker OR (not AND) who is not attempting to block". (I'll presume you meant 9.2.3.d except for the phrase "OR (not AND) who is not attempting to block") 9.2.3.a, in the 2008 Rule Book states, "Use a technique that is not permissable by rule (See 2-3-2,3)"

If you look at NF: 2.3.1 it defines "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker's body". If your focus is on language, wouldn't "potential blocker", based on the 2.3.1 definition then include "potentially obstructing"?

My "Funk & Wagnalls" defines "obstruct" as, "1. to stop or impede movement through, 2. To block or retard the progress or way of; to impede; check, 3. To come or be in front of so as to hide from sight."

More importantly, the notion that simply because a football player happens to be wearing an eligible receivers number, and lined up as either an end or a back, can run around wherever he wants getting in the way of potential tacklers chasing his teammate runner, and cannot be contacted unless he initiates a block is absolute nonsense and is contrary to a basic premis of football.

How far you want to go down this "language" road is up to you, but before you make that call, for that reason on the field I would strongly suggest you seek out someone you respect, who you know understands the game, and run your conclusions by him.