Question about potential blocker or hitting receivers

[bigjohn]

this is from a fan site but a situation that is often not handled correctly.

question about the "chuck" rule. The slot receiver is 5-7 yards outside the tackle. At the snap he takes a few steps downfield and starts a crossing or drag route appx 5 yards down field. As he is crossing in front of the linebacker and looking at the QB the LB blindsides him. The QB was still in the pocket and threw the ball a second after the hit. This was done in front of the official....he saw it...looked at the downed player....no call. The receiver is out indefinately with a concussion now.

We all know there is no chuck rule in NFHS and I say any contact on a receiver like this falls under IUH on an eligible receiver. at the very least, many of these BLOCKS should be called BIB and this one possibly UR, don't you think?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

this is from a fan site but a situation that is often not handled correctly.



We all know there is no chuck rule in NFHS and I say any contact on a receiver like this falls under IUH on an eligible receiver. at the very least, many of these BLOCKS should be called BIB and this one possibly UR, don't you think?

I cannot envision a situation (of any kind) where I could call blocking in the back on the defense unless there was a turnover.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I cannot envision a situation (of any kind) where I could call blocking in the back on the defense unless there was a turnover.

My personal rule of thumb and one I try to communicate to my crew is that it should rise to the level of a personal foul, otherwise it's a talk-to. Others' mileage may vary.

[HLin NC]

We all know there is no chuck rule in NFHS and I say any contact on a receiver like this falls under IUH on an eligible receiver. at the very least, many of these BLOCKS should be called BIB and this one possibly UR, don't you think?

As well we remember

[rockyroad]

My understanding of the rule is that if the receiver is in front of the linebacker and running towards the linebacker, the linebacker may consider the receiver a potential blocker and respond accordingly. Is this not correct? Or am I letting bigjohn mess with my coaches brain?

[bcl1127]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

My understanding of the rule is that if the receiver is in front of the linebacker and running towards the linebacker, the linebacker may consider the receiver a potential blocker and respond accordingly. Is this not correct? Or am I letting bigjohn mess with my coaches brain?

That is an interpretation, there are others who interpret that situation differently. The rule is not cut and dry as to what a "potential blocker" is, and that allows for officials judgement to be used. There is no cut and dry rule here (of course there is a rule about no longer a potential blocker but that is vague), so the on field official's judgement is what matters.

[bigjohn]

My understanding of the rule is that if the receiver is in front of the linebacker and running towards the linebacker, the linebacker may consider the receiver a potential blocker and respond accordingly. Is this not correct? Or am I letting bigjohn mess with my coaches brain?

In the OP I said the receiver was in front of the LB but not facing him.



Defense can block same as offense, right?
If a defender comes up and plows a receiver in the back, that isn't a block in the back?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

If a defender comes up and plows a receiver in the black, that isn't a block in the back?

No -- it's clipping.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CT1

No -- it's clipping.

It's only a clip if it's below the waist.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's only a clip if it's below the waist.

And that is a big difference. One is a 10 yard penalty, the other is a 15 yard penalty.

Based on the OP, I am only going to call this a foul (illegal use of hands BTW) if there is little question that a receiver was going to block then the contact is mostly on the defender. There has to be some advantage for this play, not just some little contact. This is something I usually talk players out of as a Back Judge when it is suspect. Some teams teach this more than others and at the high school level it is usually easy to pick those teams out based on their actions. Many go "head hunting" to hit anyone that is around them even if they are clearly not a threat.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

My understanding of the rule is that if the receiver is in front of the linebacker and running towards the linebacker, the linebacker may consider the receiver a potential blocker and respond accordingly. Is this not correct? Or am I letting bigjohn mess with my coaches brain?

Unless he's behind the deep safety, he's always going to be running at some defender. If it's obvious he's in his route, it should be a flag.

I wish the NF would clean up the semantics in this rule.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

this is from a fan site but a situation that is often not handled correctly.

We all know there is no chuck rule in NFHS and I say any contact on a receiver like this falls under IUH on an eligible receiver. at the very least, many of these BLOCKS should be called BIB and this one possibly UR, don't you think?

Where did the OP say the receiver was hit in the back?

And did the fan seem to think the receiver would be any less concussed if the play had been flagged?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Unless he's behind the deep safety, he's always going to be running at some defender. If it's obvious he's in his route, it should be a flag.

I wish the NF would clean up the semantics in this rule.

I guess it's the "obvious he's in his route" part that needs cleaning up...basically I teach my linebackers that if they think the kid is coming at them, engage him. I don't let them blindside some kid who is already running past them or who is looking back at the QB while they are running. But I don't want some slot guy getting a free shot at my backer on a crack back type block either.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I guess it's the "obvious he's in his route" part that needs cleaning up...basically I teach my linebackers that if they think the kid is coming at them, engage him. I don't let them blindside some kid who is already running past them or who is looking back at the QB while they are running. But I don't want some slot guy getting a free shot at my backer on a crack back type block either.

Well it is pretty obvious someone is not trying to block you when they are not looking at you. This has also been illustrated in the comic book as well. It is really not that hard to tell the difference as people like to make it out to be. But the problem are the fact that coaches think that they can hit anyone that is in front of them and that part is the hardest part to overcome as an official when you call an "obvious" foul on a defender. Heck you have coaches that think any contact is OK under all kind of silly situations.

Peace

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

this is from a fan site but a situation that is often not handled correctly.



We all know there is no chuck rule in NFHS and I say any contact on a receiver like this falls under IUH on an eligible receiver. at the very least, many of these BLOCKS should be called BIB and this one possibly UR, don't you think?

If B clocks A face-to-face and A gets concussed, then A needs to learn to watch where he's going--it's a valuable lesson that will serve him well for the rest of his life.
If B clocks A in the back outside of the FBZ, then SOME kind of illegal contact has occurred, unless A ran directly into a (mostly) stationary B player. (In this case, A has blocked B using his back... albeit probably accidentally.) With B clocking A in the back, I've likely got some sort of personal foul. You just can't do that.

There's obviously no DPI in the case described. But if A runs into B and the pass is thrown nearby, there's a case for OPI.