Potential blocker or not?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

Read 9-2-3(d) and tell me where in that rule that it only applies downfield.

The case play references a block. That infers that the offensive player is still a potential blocker. No argument here.

I maintain that a back (eligible receiver) who is turned and about to catch a pass is NOT a potential blocker any longer. Say the defender gets around him and wipes him out. First of all, that is a tackle of someone without the ball which is holding (a tackle does NOT have to be a wrap up). Second, contact with an eligible receiver that is no longer a blocker is illegal.

If a receiver is downfield but the QB still has the ball when the receiver is hit from the side and knocked down, is that a foul? Can't be PI but of course it is a foul. Why? Because the receiver was no longer a potential blocker.

You are right to think that this provision applies everywhere. But eligibles behind the NZ are ALL potential blockers: the entire defense is in front of them! The purpose of this rule is to prevent cheap shots on receivers downfield who are not part of the play.

That's not correct. Just because he has turned does not me an he's no longer a potential blocker: he could turn again and block.

It depends. If the covering official judges that the receiver has run away from the defender and the pass has gone elsewhere, then you'd have illegal use of hands. But if the play is coming up behind this receiver and he might block, then it's legal.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

B may push, pull, or ward off an opponent to get to a loose ball. What is a pass? B may also block A if it is a legal block.

As long as the A player and the ball aren't beyond the LOS and there is no IUH and there is a legal block the play is legal.

Considering that B can push or pull, what would be illegal use of hands? Yanking up on a leg, maybe?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The purpose of this rule is to prevent cheap shots on receivers downfield who are not part of the play.

I don't believe that, because there's already coverage for that as a personal foul.