The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 14, 2015, 09:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
TE runs a route at 5 yard beyond LOS, MLB runs up and blasts (knocks him down)the TE who is looking at the QB as he drags across the field. Many coaches teach this as the best way to defend the Mesh route. They call it rerouting or collision the crosser.

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/inde...6521#msg116521
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight

Last edited by bigjohn; Fri May 15, 2015 at 07:08am.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 08:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
TE runs a route at 5 yard beyond LOS, MLB runs up and blasts (knocks him down)the TE who is looking at the QB as he drags across the field. Many coaches teach this as the best way to defend the Mesh route. They call it rerouting or collision the crosser.

"Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
Was the MLB advised whether the play called was intended to be a pass, or a delayed run at the MLB? Actually, he doesn't know (for sure) UNTIL someone actually throws a legal pass, so it's very likely he considers that TE charging at him (regardless of where the TE might be looking) as a POTENTIAL blocking threat and is entitled to protect himself by LEGALLY contacting the TE to remove the POTENTIAL threat.

You can continue beating this dead horse until the flies give up on the carcase, but it's not going to get up and run.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 08:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
at the very least it should be an illegal block in the back!
9-3-5

Game officials need to be aware of situations that are likely to produce unnecessary or excessive
contact. Blindside blocks,


What is Excessive?
While the NFHS Football Rules now expressly preclude conduct that is “excessive” and “unnecessary,”
the rules have always barred efforts to injure or “take out” an opponent. Situations involving contact that exceed
what is usual, normal or proper must to be eliminated from the game.
Considering this potential for serious injury, it is critical that those situations involving unnecessary or
excessive contact on players are eliminated whether or not that contact is otherwise deemed legal.
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 09:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
TE runs a route at 5 yard beyond LOS, MLB runs up and blasts (knocks him down)the TE who is looking at the QB as he drags across the field. Many coaches teach this as the best way to defend the Mesh route. They call it rerouting or collision the crosser.

"Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
That looks like a technique I'd coach. Do you think that any recent change makes this a personal foul, unnecessary roughness? It's hard for me to believe that a potential receiver's turning to look at a potential passer gives him some privileged status.

Does such a call rely on the judgment that the MLB deliberately waited for the TE to turn his head, as opposed to its being a particularly good time to knock him off his route?
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 09:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,717
Big John, if you believe blocking (no-hands technique) a potential pass receiver on team B's side of the neutral zone, under conditions when a forward pass would be legal, became illegal at some time in Fed rules, could you say when that change was made?

In the NFL it is possible to pinpoint that change, when the restriction on defenders against potential receivers was changed from "illegal use of the hands or arms" to "illegal use of hands, arms, or body", roughly 30 yrs. ago. I saw no corresponding change in Federation rules.

There was a perpetual POE (I don't know what else to call it, maybe labeled a "note") that the NFL kept from the time they used the same rule book as NCAA, which cautioned officials to watch out for "the promiscuous use of the hands or arms" which was said to often be used by defenders against potential receivers, "in lieu of a legal block". In other words, they acknowledged that one could legally block a potential pass receiver to disadvantage him should a pass subsequently be thrown, or to discourage a pass entirely. That was above & beyond the general permission defenders had to use hands & arms against opponents who were trying to block them. A legal block at that time required the arms to be kept close to the body. That note or POE became superfluous in NFL after "illegal use of...body" was introduced, and the foul changed from "illegal use of hands" or "holding" to "illegal contact".

Last edited by Robert Goodman; Fri May 15, 2015 at 09:58am.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 10:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
Then we need an editorial change in the CASE BOOK and the Rule 9-2-3d already says "Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker." It does not say contact with only hands, it says CONTACT!!!

. . A defensive player shall not:
a. Use a technique that is not permissible by rule. (See 2-3-2, 4)
b. Use his hands to add momentum to the charge of a teammate who is on
the line of scrimmage.
c. Use his hands or arms to hook, lock, clamp, grasp, encircle or hold in an
effort to restrain an opponent other than the runner.
d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.

However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block
or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use
hands or body in the manner described. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a
potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight

Last edited by bigjohn; Fri May 15, 2015 at 10:41am.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 11:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
Then we need an editorial change in the CASE BOOK and the Rule 9-2-3d already says "Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker." It does not say contact with only hands, it says CONTACT!!!

. . A defensive player shall not:
a. Use a technique that is not permissible by rule. (See 2-3-2, 4)
b. Use his hands to add momentum to the charge of a teammate who is on
the line of scrimmage.
c. Use his hands or arms to hook, lock, clamp, grasp, encircle or hold in an
effort to restrain an opponent other than the runner.
d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.

However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block
or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use
hands or body in the manner described. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a
potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)
Either a change in the Case Book, or the rule book needs to move that provision from 9-2-3 (ILLEGAL USE OF HANDS AND HOLDING) to 9-3-3 (ILLEGAL BLOCKING).

It may be a long time yet, however, until this contradiction is resolved, because an action that would produce a violation under that understanding by the Case Book would practically always be a violation anyway because it would be illegal use of hands on an opponent's back, or DPI. How often do you think you'd see a potential receiver who's gone past a defender then get a body block in the back from that defender? The defender is unlikely to catch up to the receiver until the ball is thrown, or unless the defender pushes or pulls him. The receiver might turn around & come back on a hook pattern, but then he's no longer in that situation described by the Case Book.

Last edited by Robert Goodman; Fri May 15, 2015 at 11:51am.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 12:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
A defensive player shall not:

d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.


This is under Illegal use of hands, that is the foul!!! Wow!!

Read the Penalty portion, it says Illegal use of hands or arms (Arts.1a. 2, 3a,b,d)
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight

Last edited by bigjohn; Fri May 15, 2015 at 12:07pm.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 12:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
A defensive player shall not:

d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.
This is under Illegal use of hands, that is the foul!!! Wow!! )
What part of, "who is no longer a POTENTIAL blocker" are you having trouble understanding. Any player advancing TOWARDS an opponent is a "POTENTIAL blocker" unless and until a legal forward pass has BEEN THROWN.

The defensive player has no way of knowing what the advancing opponent is intending, until he demonstrates it.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 12:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
Show me in the Rules Book or Case Book where it defines potential blocker other than 9.2.3d

A defender may legally
contact an eligible receiver beyond the neutral zone before the pass is in flight.
The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to
block by pushing or pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use
hands in the manner described. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a
potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)


Potential blocker does not mean anyone that could possibly block you, it means someone who actually is trying to block you!! If he is an eligible receiver, the rules say you can not contact him if he is not trying to block you or moving away from you(in any direction) or past you.
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight

Last edited by bigjohn; Fri May 15, 2015 at 01:00pm.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 01:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 684
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
Potential blocker does not mean anyone that could possibly block you, it means someone who actually is trying to block you!!
potential
[puh-ten-shuh l]
adjective
1. possible, as opposed to actual

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potential
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 01:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
The dictionary and the rules book, case book etc are not the same thing. Not even close!



However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block or has gone past or is moving away,
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 15, 2015, 07:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
A defensive player shall not:

d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.


This is under Illegal use of hands, that is the foul!!! Wow!!

Read the Penalty portion, it says Illegal use of hands or arms (Arts.1a. 2, 3a,b,d)
Which means that if they intend 3d to apply to all contact, not only that using hands, they'd have to make the conforming change in that parenthetic too.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 16, 2015, 12:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read!
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 16, 2015, 01:40pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
Show me in the Rules Book or Case Book where it defines potential blocker other than 9.2.3d

A defender may legally
contact an eligible receiver beyond the neutral zone before the pass is in flight.
The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to
block by pushing or pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use
hands in the manner described. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a
potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)


Potential blocker does not mean anyone that could possibly block you, it means someone who actually is trying to block you!! If he is an eligible receiver, the rules say you can not contact him if he is not trying to block you or moving away from you(in any direction) or past you.
Maybe if you would officiate a few games, instead of complaining about what is called, this might be an easy thing to figure out.

I do not have many problems calling these and have several times over the years.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illegal Use of Hands ballgame99 Basketball 28 Fri Feb 15, 2013 08:51am
Illegal Use of the Hands Suudy Football 16 Fri Sep 01, 2006 01:02pm
DPI or Illegal use of the hands? Suudy Football 4 Fri Nov 04, 2005 07:08am
Illegal Use of the Hands Suudy Football 16 Sat Oct 01, 2005 01:00pm
Illegal use of hands or nothing? Newbie Scott Football 3 Thu Sep 04, 2003 05:25pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1