Call Determination

[MarkD]

NFHS Rules - Quaterback A1 rolls out on a play action pass. Running back A2 goes down field 5 yards and tries to cut to the sideline. As A2 makes his cut he crosses B1 the outside backer. B1 contacts A2 from the front and knocks A2 down before he can make the cut. Quaterback A1 has no one to throw to so he tucks the ball away and runs up field for a 5 yard gain. The back judge throws a flag for Defensive Pass Interference. The wing throws a flag for Defensive Illegal Use of Hands. The referee determines the following: A2 was running straight at B1 and not away from B1 so there is no Illegal Use of Hands. The ball was never thrown so there can not be any Defensive Pass Interference. The play was a run both flags are waved off.

This play has caused a tremendous amount of discuusion. Who do you think was right???

[Schultj]

This is probably a play you had to see, but I think it was a good call. From what you said, the RB certainly wasn't clipped, and pass interference in not an option. I would have to confer with the wing official on the illegal use of hands call because he should be in better position to make that call (only about five yards out), rather than the back judge.

[Smiley]

DPI is definitely out as there was no pass thrown. As far as illegal use of hands, that can only be called if B1 contacts A2 when he is no longer a potential blocker. Sounds like in this case the referee ruled since he was running directly at B1, he was still a potential blocker.

[ABoselli]

If I read this right, A is making his cut to the outside and B1 is in his path (closer to the sideline than A1). If the QB is rolling out, it's very plausible for B1 to assume A1 is trying to block him so the QB can cut it upfield.

Sounds like a very wise white hat in this game.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by MarkD
NFHS Rules - Quaterback A1 rolls out on a play action pass. Running back A2 goes down field 5 yards and tries to cut to the sideline. As A2 makes his cut he crosses B1 the outside backer. B1 contacts A2 from the front and knocks A2 down before he can make the cut. Quaterback A1 has no one to throw to so he tucks the ball away and runs up field for a 5 yard gain. The back judge throws a flag for Defensive Pass Interference. The wing throws a flag for Defensive Illegal Use of Hands. The referee determines the following: A2 was running straight at B1 and not away from B1 so there is no Illegal Use of Hands. The ball was never thrown so there can not be any Defensive Pass Interference. The play was a run both flags are waved off.

This play has caused a tremendous amount of discuusion. Who do you think was right???

I think any discussion you should be having about this play should be about when, why and how to call a foul. You have a Back Judge tossing a DPI flag when there’s been no pass? A wing official calling IUH on what sounds like legal contact? And most of all, why is the Referee watching a downfield receiver? Who’s doing his job? Isn’t he supposed to be fishing in his own pond?
Could this be a crew made up of a fellow named Derock and his buddies?
Seriously Mark. We shouldn’t be tossing flags unless we’re sure a foul has occurred and we’ve seen the whole thing. I like to say to myself “ that's a foul, yep, that's a foul, oh yha, that's a foul “ then I go for my flag.

[STEVED21]

Gotta agree with everyone here. No fouls. I can understand some confusion on the IUH but how can you throw a DPI flag without a pass being thrown?

[Ed Hickland]

BJ needs a little education on DPI -- ball must be in the air.

As far illegal use of hands. Timing is what I would consider. Where was B1 when the contact with A2 occurred? Was the QB Running toward his side such that B1 was making a legal block in order to tackle the runner? Or, was the QB scrambling such that A2 might have been a potential receiver.

I remember a game a few years ago where late in the game, score A - 13, B - 17, the QB was scrambling looking for a receiver, any receiver. A DB right in front of me held one of the receivers by the jersey. The QB managed to find another receiver further downfield.

My thought was the DB denied the QB a potential receiver, therefore, an advantage was gained.

[Smiley]

The question isn't whether A2 is a potential receiver, but whether he is a potential blocker. He can be both. In your example, it was clearly holding. If the block had been legal, the fact that he was a potential receiver had no bearing.

[Bob M.]

I agree that in Ed's play, the action by the DB is most definitely holding, but in the original play posted by MarkD, the linebacker's contact (sounds like a legal block) is nothing. Keep the flags in your pocket!