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.

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?

Even worse, in fact, unbelieveable. Our interpreter is saying this rule does not prevent a defender from blocking a receiver running his route and that our association has been not been calling that for the last 20 years.

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.

Might it be the way you are phrasing the question. No rule does, "prevent a defender from blocking a receiver running his route", up to and including that point that the received poses a blocking threat to the defender. Once the receiver ceases to be a threat, going past or away from the defender, contacting that receiver can be defensive holding.

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

If there is such a player, he should be in the NFL right now.. However, they have a five-yard chuck rule, so his skills are useless.

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:

Well, not quite.

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.

No matter, it would be a BiB anyway.

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?

Here's the important stuff from 9.2.3.A: 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)

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".

Let's look at NF: 2.3.1, "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker's body".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jim - Is this your play?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfOXJHkFxwc

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Hey guys, chew on this!

No longer a potential blocker. Well, if you think about it, an eligible receiver is restricted from blocking downfield and if he does block and a pass is thrown, a haha moment, offensive pass interference.

Therefore, if an eligible receiver is indeed on a pass pattern he is "no longer a potential blocker."

Of course, only the offense knows that he is an eligible receiver and not a defender at this point. The defender still sees him as a potential blocker so he can legally contact him until the ball is thrown.

Did I strike a nerve Theisey? You're absolutely right, I don't know a thing about "your crew", or, " the way we operate" but YOUR comment, "and I know they use that rule/definition (NCAA) in our high school games", was not the smartest or most assuring thing you've offered, unless of course you work HS games in Texas or Mass., in which case the NCAA code would be appropriate.

There are different rules for different levels, and if you choose to work different levels, congratulations, but it's your responsibility to apply the appropriate rule to the level your working, even though it might be somewhat inconvenient to deal with multiple codes.

Hey ajmc, Theisey made an excellent point. Think about it. NFHS puts out a publication listing rules differences between NCAA and NFHS and if you notice NFHS 9-2-3d is not on that list which means there is agreement on this rule. However, the wording of the rule is different between the codes and that is largely because NFHS has a philosophy to keep the rule book as simple and concise as possible.

For this one rule NCAA code does a much better and clearer explanation. In fact, there are a number of rules where the NCAA verbose wordings work well in helping to understand the rules.

Nowhere did Theisey say the crew enforced different rules but they do use the NCAA wording to explain the rules.

Quite frankly I have a problem with officials who live in a cocoon with the rules. These days we are often confronted with "Sunday" or "Saturday" rules and the more you understand the similarities and differences and can explain them, the better official you are.

I agree with this statement.

Thanks for adding your $0.02 Ed. I do understand that there are far more similarities and things in common between rule codes than there are differences.

I guess the point, I apparently didn't make clear enough, is I just didn't understand there being any value to adding the extra language of the NCAA code, where it doesn't appear to make any relevant difference to any rational interpretation.

It doesn't seem to matter very much which interprertation guides your thought process when the definitions mean exactly the same thing. Adding NCAA verbiage often seems a long way around to an objective of, "as simple and concise as possible" or even less confusing

I've seen cases where NCAA or NFL had added language in an apparent attempt to clarify what was there already, and left things just as unclear and subject to judgement as Fed's shorter wording. For a long time NCAA incorporated an entire "Football Interpretations" book (cross-referenced to the rules), originally independently written & published, as official, and the combination was of uneven quality -- in some cases redundant, ISTR at least one case flatly contradictory as I saw it, and in many instances lacking where you'd've expected clarif'n. If you looked back over the history of NCAA's football rules, it was apparent to me that in some cases Fed (starting with NCAA's book) deliberately deleted words or passages in their own effort to clarify, which was more successful.

Disclaimer: I've hardly glanced at a Fed rule book that came out in the past quarter century, so Fed may have messed things up a good deal over that time.

Robert in the Bronx