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

[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?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by 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?

The same reason it was illegal for so long for blockers to use their hands. This rule dates from that time.

The rules makers considered it OK to knock receivers off their routes by contact, but declined to extend to defenders the right to use their hands & arms to do so when they began to allow it for offensive blockers. The right to beat an opponent's block by use of hands or arms they kept as it was.

You're trying to read the rule & case interpret'n as if it were designed to prohibit knocking receivers off their routes by body-blocking them. It's not. If you read it objectively, you can see that. Only if you approach it with a preconceived idea that they intended to prohibit that would you get that result. If they really meant it that way, they should rewrite it.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The same reason it was illegal for so long for blockers to use their hands. This rule dates from that time.

The rules makers considered it OK to knock receivers off their routes by contact, but declined to extend to defenders the right to use their hands & arms to do so when they began to allow it for offensive blockers. The right to beat an opponent's block by use of hands or arms they kept as it was.

You're trying to read the rule & case interpret'n as if it were designed to prohibit knocking receivers off their routes by body-blocking them. It's not. If you read it objectively, you can see that. Only if you approach it with a preconceived idea that they intended to prohibit that would you get that result. If they really meant it that way, they should rewrite it.

Sometimes this "wordsmithing" gets ridiculous as people try to turn apples into oranges. Until someone throws a pass NOBODY is a "receiver". Certain players are eligible to be pass receivers and protected from someone taking their opportunity to catch a pass away, illegally (NF 7-5-6)

Pass interference restrictions begin for "A" at the snap (because if they were paying attention in the huddle, they were told it's a pass play) restrictions begin for "B" when the pass is thrown (they only know that opponents are charging at them, but can't be (absolutely) sure why until someone throws a pass).

So, the defense can protect themselves against ANYONE who might be charging at them (someone who is between them and the player holding the ball) UNTIL a pass is actually thrown. Of course a player running away from a defender is NOT CHARGING, neither is a player who has run past a defender, but a defender can LEGALLY ward off an opponent who remains a potential threat from goal line to goal line, up to the instant a legal forward pass is thrown.

[bigjohn]

And according to the 2015 POE, many of these "blocks" would be considered blind side blocks and some even to the level of flagrant.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

And according to the 2015 POE, many of these "blocks" would be considered blind side blocks and some even to the level of flagrant.

Can you give some examples of how that would occur?

[bigjohn]

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