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

[bigjohn]

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)

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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.

[bigjohn]

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)

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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.

[bigjohn]

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.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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

[bigjohn]

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,

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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

[Robert Goodman]

I'd still like to know what Big John's concern is about blocking a player who's past you or moving away from you. Physically, how is that even possible, without blocking in the back? Even with blocking in the back, it'd be damn difficult!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Potential blocker does not mean anyone that could possibly block you, it means someone who actually is trying to block you!!

Your problem is not with either the Rule or Case Book, John, it's with your understanding of the word "Potential", which does not mean what you are attributing it to mean.

When an opponent has actually started to "try and block you", he is already initiated the process and is "blocking" (nothing potential about it). When he is in a position to be able to initiate a block (if he subsequently chooses to) then he clearly is a "potential" blocker.

[bigjohn]

but if he is clearly not trying to block you and trying to run his route, he is no longer a potential blocker according to the Case Book 9.2.3 sit a

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)



Rut, just might happen, I have a guy begging me to be his umpire! I plan to get my credentials this summer.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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.

[bigjohn]

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read!