When Did This Rule Go Into Effect

[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.

[ljudge]

I saw an article in Referee magazine a while back that explained this rule with some playpic diagrams. Basically, if a team A player has not yet occupied the yardline of a team B player OR if that same team A player was on a yardline occupied by a team B player and facing toward him, then he was a potential blocker in both of these situations.

So, to have illegal use of hands the team A player must not be beyond the yardline of the team B player (when contacted) by a team B player. Or, if they are occupying the same yardline the team A player must be facing away from the team B player to call this foul.

My apologies in advance if someone pointed this out. This thread was long to read.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by dumbref

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

9-3-5b deals with a running play so the issue of contacting a receiver isn't valid in that play.

[parepat]

As a practical matter, how do you folks call this one.

Play action by QB, Linebackers drop into their zones. Tight end runs a drag across the middle. Line backer (B 55) contacts A-81 in the front as he comes threw his zone. Or contacts him from the side (ie linebacker is further from the LOS and steps up to hit the TE who is running parallel with the LOS). Ball is not in the air in either scenario.

[ajmc]

Your example sounds like the QB is a "Runner", and the TE still poses a very real threat to block the LB should the QB decide to continue running. Both the QB and the TE may know the objective is to pass the ball, but until the ball is thrown, the LB is guessing and is allowed to defend himself and ward off a potential blocker.

Unless the TE has moved to where he is no longer a potential blocking threat, which is determined by the judgment of the covering official, either contact sounds legal.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Your example sounds like the QB is a "Runner", and the TE still poses a very real threat to block the LB should the QB decide to continue running. Both the QB and the TE may know the objective is to pass the ball, but until the ball is thrown, the LB is guessing and is allowed to defend himself and ward off a potential blocker.

Unless the TE has moved to where he is no longer a potential blocking threat, which is determined by the judgment of the covering official, either contact sounds legal.

Agree. If the offense is trying to make the defense think it may be a running play then I'm going to say that they succeeded.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

9.2.3 SITUATION A: End A1 sprints from the line and then cuts sharply toward the middle of the field. A1 makes no attempt to block defensive back B1. B1 pursues A1 and pushes him from the side using his open hands. Contact is made on A1’s upper arm before the pass is thrown. A1 was moving away from B1 when the contact occurred. RULING: Illegal use of hands by B1. 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).

This play says nothing about a pass either. I understand there are people who can't be wrong but you simply are. I don't need to consult anyone and your snotty sarcasm just points out that if you feel the need to attack me then you've already lost the argument. Read the case book play and understand that they are calling this IUH, not me.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

This play says nothing about a pass either. I understand there are people who can't be wrong but you simply are. I don't need to consult anyone and your snotty sarcasm just points out that if you feel the need to attack me then you've already lost the argument. Read the case book play and understand that they are calling this IUH, not me.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, kdf5, but you're being somewhat myopic. I have no interest in attacking you, nor am I concerned with "winning" any argument. However, if I understand your position as being: that a defender is somehow prohibited from initiating contact with an opponent who is between him and a RUNNER, whether or not this opponent is an eligible receiver, or not, as long as the opponent poses the possible threat of blocking the defender, you are absolutely and completely WRONG.

The key to whether or not any contact is legal is whether the defender's opponent is in a position to reasonably be a threat to block, i.e. is between the defender and the runner, or has gone past the defender, or is moving away from the defender either of which eliminates the threat of the opponent being a potential blocker.

Once the ball has been thrown is a different matter, at that point the runner has become a passer initiating the pass interference restrictions against the defense, which are entirely different than when the runner, is still a runner.

If you were attempting to defend the notion that a "potential receiver" is somehow immune from contact beyond the NZ before a pass is thrown, you are absolutely wrong. As stated some time ago, if the defender is skilled enough to keep an opponent between himself and the runner, (keeping the threat of being blocked alive) he may absolutely initiate contact to defend against being blocked, the entire length of the field. Once the opponent either gets past the defender, or moves away from him, the defender may not initiate contact, as the threat of being blocked evaporates.

The decision, as whether the contact is legal, or not, is made exclusively and unilaterally by the covering official. It is a judgment call unique to each play, and each contact.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: For Jim D.'s play, I agree with him and some others that it sounds legal. This is why it's so important to see the whole play. You need to determine whether the defender's primary objective was to get to the runner despite A2 being in the way, or was it to take A2 out of the play as a potential receiver. If you see this on the field, and see the whole play, you should be able to make that determination. If his objective is primarily to get to the runner, and he takes out A2 to do so, he gets "two for the price of one" and has done nothing illegal.

[Ed Hickland]

Do you think if the rule 9-2-3d read this way it would be better understood.

Defensive players may ward off or legally block an eligible pass receiver until that
player occupies the same yard line as the defender or until the opponent
could not possibly block him. Continuous contact is illegal.

I really like the phrase "until the opponent could not possibly block him." Think about the play where B runs through A2 to get to A1. Or, when eligible A turns back toward the line of scrimmage.

Oh, BTW. From the NCAA Rule Book.

[ajmc]

I think the current language of NF 9.2.3.d; "A defensive player shall not (d) contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.", is perfectly clear, and places the primary decision factor exactly where it belongs, in the hands of the covering official who is observing the action.

There shouldn't be any confusion for the covering official about it being perfectly legal for B to run through A2, to make a play on the Runner (A1), or contact to A2 being a foul should he turn away from B, in any direction, including back towards the LOS, as long as the change in direction removes the threat of blocking.

[Theisey]

Go for it Ed... submit the change.. I happen to like a LOT of the wording the NCAA uses in many places. If it will avoid confusion, I'm all for it.

I'd even suggest you submit the change now. You just might get a rule clarification or interpretation come June that uses the words you submit.

All the guys on the crew I work on are NCAA officials as well and I know they use that rule/definition in our high school games.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Theisey

All the guys on the crew I work on are NCAA officials as well and I know they use that rule/definition in our high school games.

Wow, all this time I thought we were supposed to use the definitions that apply to whatever rules code we were working under. Does that mean that all the shouting from the sideline, about Sunday rules, might be right because they like those rules better?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by parepat

Play action by QB, Linebackers drop into their zones. Tight end runs a drag across the middle. Line backer (B 55) contacts A-81 in the front as he comes threw his zone. Or contacts him from the side (ie linebacker is further from the LOS and steps up to hit the TE who is running parallel with the LOS). Ball is not in the air in either scenario.

Ooooo, good one! If you'll allow me to improve it from a coach's perspective, there are plays where a wide receiver starts on a shallow cross route, sometimes continuing as a receiver and other times cracking back on a linebacker for a sweep to the side the receiver came from. The cornerback on that side has coverage responsibility for the next receiver who comes out that side, but also responsibility against the running play. What if the CB blocks the WR in front of him as described by parepat above? At the moment of contact, because the WR is facing sideways to the CB, the WR is no longer a threat to block the CB, but is a threat to block the LB. Is the WR supposed to get free passage across, on the possibility it'll be a pass play, and so an unmolested shot at the LB if it's a run? Or is the CB supposed to be allowed to knock him off that blocking track, and thereby be allowed to mess up the pass route as well?

If it's legal, it does look like a smart play by the CB. He doesn't have to give much of a zetz to the WR to disrupt either the crackback or the passing route, so he can easily recover to maintain contain against the sweep.

Robert in the Bronx

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Wow, all this time I thought we were supposed to use the definitions that apply to whatever rules code we were working under. Does that mean that all the shouting from the sideline, about Sunday rules, might be right because they like those rules better?

Listen Mr "ajmc" ... we work to the spirit and intent the rules and I don't a give rats a$$ what you might think about the way we operate. We call NFHS games by NF rules and I'm not going to argue nor nitpick every little interpretation you seem to post just to make a point about the way a rule is writtne or called.... So WOW back to you. Our crew knows the freak'n rule probably a whole lot better than you do period! End of discussion.