HELP: DPI / Illegal use of the hands (NFHS)

[Reffing Rev.]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

A defender can legally block a potential blocker so unless the receiver is running away from the defender or beyond him it's generally legal contact. He can't hold him, but he can block him. Even if the QB is in shot gun or dropping straight back it could be a running play requiring the receiver to block. If you do have a foul it is illegal use of hands (same signal as hold).

And in NFHS it is not an auto first down.

[Robert Goodman]

On a crossing pattern (as specified by the original poster) there's a good chance of OPI too.

[bigjohn]

A defender can legally block a potential blocker so unless the receiver is running away from the defender or beyond him it's generally legal contact.

Bisonlj


BLOCKING – USE OF HANDS
9.2.3 SITUATION A: End A1 sprints from the line and then cuts sharply toward
the middle of the field. A1 makes no attempt to block defensive back B1. B1 pursues
A1 and pushes him from the side using his open hands. Contact is made on
A1’s upper arm before the pass is thrown. A1 was moving away from B1 when
the contact occurred. RULING: Illegal use of hands by B1. 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)

[Robert Goodman]

However, bigjohn is referencing the use of hands, while Bisonlj referred to blocking in gen'l. 2 different things that may overlap in some cases:

The contact may be a block

The defender may block the opponent.

or warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him.

If the opponent is attempting to block, the defender may use hands.

Unfortunately the case book did not put a comma between those 2 phrases, but that's what they meant. If you tried to read "the opponent who Is attempting to block" as applying to both "block" and "warding off" in the previous part of the sentence, it would make sense in relationship to "warding off" but not to "block". It makes no sense to block an opponent who's trying to block you.

[bigjohn]

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....

So any attempt to hinder the receiver(block, hold, chicken-fighting, bump coverage) is illegal and the call is Illegal use of hands.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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....

So any attempt to hinder the receiver(block, hold, chicken-fighting, bump coverage) is illegal and the call is Illegal use of hands.

How do you get that from the passage you quoted? The sentence before the one you reproduced above was: "A defender may legally contact an eligible receiver beyond the neutral zone before the pass is in flight." So the sentence you quoted above says the player may legally either:

block an opponent
or
ward off an opponent who is attempting to block him.

It absolutely does not say any attempt to hinder the receiver is illegal.

[bigjohn]

why else would the DB block or hold the receiver that is not trying to block him?? The receiver is trying to run his route and the defender contacts him, any contact would be to hinder his route. That only makes sense!

This case play says, the defender can't do that and it should be flagged. Why would it be illegal to hold or push him but not illegal to block him with other parts of the defenders body?