![]() |
When Did This Rule Go Into Effect
Does anyone know when NFHS rule 9-2-3d -- A defensive player shall not contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker -- was put in the rule book?
|
Forever evidently. I don't find record of it being changed in the rule changes at Football.Refs.org.
|
Quote:
I've been convinced, for years, that somehow the NFHS sneaks things into the rule book that wasn't there in previous years. What truly amazes me is how they're able to sneak into my house and change all the copies of the older books I keep for reference. |
It was an editorial change in 1991. Those words appeared as rule 9-2-3-e. They did not exist in the 1990 book.
Why?, some coach trying to say this is new? |
Quote:
So when my LJ cautions a player, he tells his coach, who asks me what rule tells him a defender cannot block an eligible receiver all the way downfield, when I don't agree the coach calls the interpreter and tells him we don't know the rules. I found a 1996 reference in the comic book with an illustration and he still agrees with the coach. |
Well, that sucks Ed.
I'd say it would be time to go over his head and contact the State interpreter for his thoughts. Of course cc: your local guy.. maybe he'll learn something. |
Quote:
If the defensive player is skilled enough to keep the receiver between himself and the ball, all the way down the field, he can legally initiate contact on the receiver, because the receiver still constitutes a blocking threat, up until the point a forward pass is actually thrown |
Quote:
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: |
Quote:
If you read the rule it states when it he is "no longer a potential blocker." That is somewhat ambiguous. If you look at the proposal to the rules committee what it means is when the eligible receiver is even with or past the defender he can no longer contact the receiver. And, if you have a Simplified and Illustrated the intent of the rule becomes painfully clear. The penalty is illegal use of hands. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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". |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:17am. |