FED Block in the back

[johnnyg08]

Punt formation.

Gunner lined up wide runs down on a punt to defend the return, number 16 on the return team turns completely around to set up the return. With his back turned completely, the gunner from the punt team pushes #16 in the back causing him to fall to the ground. What do you have?

[kdf5]

If one of these fits, then I have nothing.

A player shall not clip or block an opponent in the back except:
a. In the free-blocking zone when the contact meets the requirements of 2-17.
b. Using hands and arms to contact an opponent above the waist in warding
off a blocker, or when attempting to reach a runner, or catch or recover a loose ball which he may legally touch or possess.
c. To tackle a runner or player pretending to be a runner.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Punt formation.

Gunner lined up wide runs down on a punt to defend the return, number 16 on the return team turns completely around to set up the return. With his back turned completely, the gunner from the punt team pushes #16 in the back causing him to fall to the ground. What do you have?

Probably something in my eye the very moment it happens.

I got rid of Mr. Defensive-Push-In-The-Back from my crew 4 years ago. Of course he didn't understand the rule quoted above either.

[Forksref]

We had a kid on the ground hurt this year from a BIB by the defense. Yes, we flagged it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Forksref

We had a kid on the ground hurt this year from a BIB by the defense. Yes, we flagged it.

I would flag it -- as a personal foul.

[Reffing Rev.]

Originally Posted by kdf5

If one of these fits, then I have nothing.

A player shall not clip or block an opponent in the back except:
a. In the free-blocking zone when the contact meets the requirements of 2-17.
b. Using hands and arms to contact an opponent above the waist in warding
off a blocker, or when attempting to reach a runner, or catch or recover a loose ball which he may legally touch or possess.
c. To tackle a runner or player pretending to be a runner.

So the question would be whether the man in position to catch the kick was a runner yet?

[johnnyg08]

In my situation, no, not even close. He was defending the gunner from the punting team. Actually we got a letter back from our state association supporting our call. The safety of the players is the first concern. I won't hesitate to do it again...although I do see the gray areas of the rule which we'll always consider when interpreting the rule.

[bisonlj]

Block in the back is more of an advantage/disadvantage rule. The only way I would consider a block in the back call on the defense or kicking team is if I somehow felt they gained an advantage (very unlikely). If the hit was to the extent that it was excessive and totally unnecessary, I would flag it as a PF.

[johnnyg08]

Isn't the rule a safety rule too though? What advantage does the defense get from a hit out of bounds? None really...but it's still illegal.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Isn't the rule a safety rule too though? What advantage does the defense get from a hit out of bounds? None really...but it's still illegal.

There's some debate over whether or not a BIB is a safety foul. I tend to lean towards no. The comparison to a late hit out of bounds is not a good one. A late hit out of bounds is a safety foul. You have one player that may relax or let down his guard due to knowing where he is on the field getting hit like they are still on the field.

I think when the NFHS separated blocking in the back from clipping back in 2002 they did so because they recognized that the danger above the waist was not nearly as significant as below. Grouping it (enforcement wise) with other fouls that are POA fouls leads me to believe that it should be enforced at the POA when an advantage is gained.

By all means... if a BIB away from the POA is severe enough to warrant a PF, throw it (as a PF).