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

[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!

[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.

Truth is the contact is usually a big two hand shiver! I still have never seen this called IUH unless the ball was in the air and then it should be DPI

[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

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.

You posted that verbatim 2 days earlier! Is this supposed to be in response to my question asking why you're concerned about cases where the opponent is past or moving away from the blocker? It doesn't fit that description at all, so now I just have to assume you're perseverating.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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

I want to see pictures and video.

Peace

[bigjohn]

You posted that verbatim 2 days earlier! Is this supposed to be in response to my question asking why you're concerned about cases where the opponent is past or moving away from the blocker? It doesn't fit that description at all, so now I just have to assume you're perseverating

I am not concerned with the two things you asked about, I think everyone agrees that both of those things make an eligible receiver no longer a potential blocker, why is it so hard to see there are 3 conditions that do the same thing and they are:

1. not attempting to block the defender
OR
2. moving away from the defender
OR
3. past the defender


and if you read this phrase, any block other that pushing or pulling is not legal

The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to
block by pushing or pulling him

the CONTACT that is allowed is even defined!!!!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I am not concerned with the two things you asked about, I think everyone agrees that both of those things make an eligible receiver no longer a potential blocker, why is it so hard to see there are 3 conditions that do the same thing and they are:

1. not attempting to block the defender
OR
2. moving away from the defender
OR
3. past the defender

Then you're only really concerned bout #1, because #2 & #3 are each very unlikely & illegal (same penalty & signal) for other reasons. Whew, at least we're over that.

and if you read this phrase, any block other that pushing or pulling is not legal

The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to
block by pushing or pulling him

the CONTACT that is allowed is even defined!!!!

Why would it say, "The contact may be a block"? Isn't the essence of blocking getting in the way of someone who doesn't want to make contact w you? If "the opponent who is attempting to block" were meant to be a limitation on both blocking & warding off, don't you see a contradiction as applied to the "a block" part of that? Why would you block an opponent who is trying to block you?

Not only that, but "by...pulling him" takes it out of the realm of legal blocking entirely. So how could that apply to the "block" part of that sentence?

It's clear to me that "a block" and "warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him" are to be construed as separate provisions. And that means they acknowledged it remained legal for an opponent to block a potential receiver who's just running a route. The warding off provision, which applies to pushing or pulling, applies to defenders seeking to disengage from a blocking opponent anywhere, which I suppose for clarif'n purposes they reiterated here.

[bigjohn]

Rule 2
Section 3
Art. 5
a and b

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Rule 2
Section 3
Art. 5
a and b

2-3 is Fed's section on "blocking". Art. 5 says, "A defensive player may also:" Its intention is to show additional types of contact a player of the defense may use besides blocking, which is why the word "also" is used. It doesn't mean all instances of contact by defenders other than what's listed there are illegal.

NFHS used to have the best written football rule book, but they (& not they alone) started going wrong some years back when they started to put material into their "Definitions" that belonged in the substantive rules. That can lead to misreadings such as the one you're giving. In this case, 2-3-5 has the unfortunate effect of implying that such forms of contact by the defense against opponents (i.e. warding off blocks) are defined as "blocking", which I'm sure they did not intend to imply. The actual definition of "blocking" is given in 2-3-1. Articles 2 thru 6 of that section belong in rule 9. Actual definitions resume with articles 7 thru 9.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

NFHS used to have the best written football rule book, but they (& not they alone) started going wrong some years back when they started to put material into their "Definitions" that belonged in the substantive rules. .

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.

[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?