Potential blocker or not?

[HLin NC]

I believe it is a judgement call.

Well then there is no need to look for further opinion nor have an argument about it

9.2.3 SITUATION C: Quarterback A1 drops back 15 yards and throws a legal
forward pass intended for A2, who is 5 yards behind the neutral zone. Before the pass reaches A2: (a) B1 tackles A2; or (b) B1 blocks A2. RULING: In (a), tackling A2 is a foul, as it is a form of holding. Defensive players are prohibited from grasping an opponent other than the runner. The foul in (a) occurs during a looseball play, and the 10-yard penalty will be administered from the previous spot. In (b), the contact by B1 is not pass interference and, if the block itself is legal, there is no infraction. (7-5-10)

Not sure how this gets any clearer. We can safely assume that if he is the intended receiver, then he obviously NOT a potential blocker.

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

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).

The foul is illegal use of hands, specifically holding. There's no foul for tackling. An attempt to knock someone down isn't illegal use of hands per se.

[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 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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Not sure how this gets any clearer. We can safely assume that if he is the intended receiver, then he obviously NOT a potential blocker.

OK, but the ball is in the air and this has to do with the ball being actually thrown. This is really not the debate that is being had (at least by me or IR that I am aware of). If the ball is not thrown you can have a penalty that has nothing to do with DPI.

Peace

[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. The Federation's own casebook says it is. All this other stuff has to do with downfield and PI.

Good luck explaining it when you call it there in Illinois.

[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?