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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Not that I disagree with the assessment that NFHS rules are short of perfect clarity, but when 99+% can understand what was intended by what was written, the onus shifts to that sparse minority, who insists on seeing things differently, to rethink the wisdom of their conclusions.

I'm sensitive to this because I've done copy editing, including some legal stuff for lawyers + much instructional stuff, and also because I have Fed's older material to compare to. Until ~35 yrs. ago, going back apparently to the 1940s, Fed had clearly gone thru an effort to clean their football rules up & keep them clean. NCAA even adopted some of their language because Fed led the way in clarifying it. Then they lapsed. In this case the problem is glaring, in that even a cursory reading shows they stuck in arts. 2 thru 6 at a later time & for a different purpose from arts. 1, 7, 8, & 9. Some of the substance of what's in arts. 2 thru 6 used to be in rule 9, so I don't know whose bright idea it was to move it into the definitions, let alone to put it all under "blocking".

[bigjohn]

PI restrictions begin for A at the snap, if he is attempting to block B and makes contact it better be a run play if not it is OPI. Does this not factor into the potential blocker debate?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

PI restrictions begin for A at the snap, if he is attempting to block B and makes contact it better be a run play if not it is OPI. Does this not factor into the potential blocker debate?

ABSOLUTELY, unfortunately, unless the defender overheard the play called in the offensive huddle, he doesn't know (for sure) whether the intent is either a passing situation, or a running play UNTIL an A player ACTUALLY THROWS (forward, legally) the ball, sooo, he has to defend against what he actually sees, which is an opponent between him and the ball.

As EVERYONE seems to agree (and has repeatedly stated) when that eligible A player downfield is even with, passed or moving away from the B player, he should not be contacted, even before anyone throws a pass. All of which factors into the covering officials judgment and decision as to whether the contact was legal, or not.

[bigjohn]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA...tDUWZsakk/edit

What would you call here? at :06 of this clip?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA...tDUWZsakk/edit

What would you call here? at :06 of this clip?

Since the ball was yet to be thrown, and a number of possibilities existed ;
1. Could be a delayed screen pass to a back following a
path created by the offensive player who had advanced.
2. Could be a delayed hand-off, to a back, running off
left tackle seeking down-field support.
3. Could be a scramble.

considering the offensive player was between the defender and his teammate in possession of a live ball (by definition "a runner", until he might SUBSEQUENTLY become a "passer"), and very easily could have turned up-field to lead interference had one of the alternate possibilities developed and the contact didn't seem overly, or unnecessarily aggressive, I've got nothing.

[bigjohn]

not even a block in the back?
Wow!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

not even a block in the back?
Wow!

Did the offensive player turn into the contact? By any chance, you wouldn't be an "offensive" asst coach, would you?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

not even a block in the back?
Wow!

Nope. I might have something else, but not a block in the back.

Peace