Fed FBZ accidentally ends

[Welpe]

I am not aware of any interpretation that allows leeway for the ball "unintentionally" leaving the FBZ.

[HLin NC]

Thre isn't one and I've no idea what in the world he's talking about.

[Robert Goodman]

What I'm talking about is that Fed has published an interpret'n based on how to rule when the ball is apparently intended to be snapped to a point outside the FBZ and does leave the FBZ. They're saying that in that case you don't actually have to observe when contact is initiated relative to the time the ball leaves the FBZ, they have another way to rule on it which is the same as some state associations had adopted.

So what I'm looking for is whether you think the same interpret'n would apply or not to a case where the ball leaves the FBZ apparently accidentally but quickly on the snap, or indeed whether this ruling has any bearing on how you'd rule, by clarifying the intention of the rule.

[HLin NC]

Can you cite the case book reference to which you refer?

[Robert Goodman]

I saw it quoted at Huey's last week:

2.17.2 SITUATION E: A1 is in shotgun formation, lined up seven yards behind the line of scrimmage ready to receive the snap. Immediately after the snap to A1, (a) A2 immediately drops and blocks B1 below the waist or (b) A2 rises, and slightly retreats as if to go in traditional pass blocking protection, but then dives and blocks B1 below the waist. Both A2 and B1 were in the zone and on the line of scrimmage at the snap. The contact between A2 and B1 takes place in the freeblocking zone. RULING: It is a legal block in (a) and an illegal block below the waist in (b). It is legal for A2 to block B1 below the waist if the contact is made immediately following the snap. Any later, and the ball is considered to have left the free-blocking zone and the block is illegal.

[JRutledge]

Robert,

I am not following you. What ramifications are you worried about or what is changed by a new rule? I might be like others here, not sure what has changed or what makes this illegal?

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not following you. What ramifications are you worried about or what is changed by a new rule? I might be like others here, not sure what has changed or what makes this illegal?

What's changed is that Fed is now saying that in the case described, don't look for whether contact occurred before or after the ball left the FBZ, just deem it legal or illegal as specified. (This is not brand new thinking. Rulings from state ***'ns saying the same thing were brought up here & elsewhere last year. At least one state ***'n adopted a different ruling in that case, and most said nothing.)

So what I'm saying is, if the conditions are altered a little as I wrote above, do you try to adapt that case ruling to the altered conditions, or do you treat the case ruling as sui generis and just go by the rule?

I have trouble understanding why you have trouble understanding what I'm asking.

[waltjp]

Don't make it more difficult than it is. If the ball is out of the FBZ blocking below the waist is prohibited.