When Did This Rule Go Into Effect

[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.

[dumbref]

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

9-3-5 b&c supports Jim's point.