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

[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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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.

[bigjohn]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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?

[Robert Goodman]

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".