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

We are having a huge debate in our association on the interpretation of contacting a receiver downfield. The play that has really begun the debate is a team having a tight end or receiver running a crossing pattern and getting hit by line backers (knocking the receiver to the ground or significantly off their path). Our crew flags this every time if the QB is in shotgun or drops straight back, but what if it is play action??. I would really enjoy to hear how your crews call these plays or if you have any info, links, etc.. to pass on.

The rule is relatively clear. You have to let a receiver run a route without unnecessary contact. And a receiver that is not a threat to block you, cannot just be hit because they are in front of you. Totally judgment and yes I would have to look at it if there was play-action, but it would depend if the receiver is running towards a defender and the defender felt they were trying to block.

Peace

A defender can legally block a potential blocker so unless the receiver is running away from the defender or beyond him it's generally legal contact. He can't hold him, but he can block him. Even if the QB is in shot gun or dropping straight back it could be a running play requiring the receiver to block. If you do have a foul it is illegal use of hands (same signal as hold).

And in NFHS it is not an auto first down.

On a crossing pattern (as specified by the original poster) there's a good chance of OPI too.

Bisonlj


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)

However, bigjohn is referencing the use of hands, while Bisonlj referred to blocking in gen'l. 2 different things that may overlap in some cases:

The defender may block the opponent.

If the opponent is attempting to block, the defender may use hands.

Unfortunately the case book did not put a comma between those 2 phrases, but that's what they meant. If you tried to read "the opponent who Is attempting to block" as applying to both "block" and "warding off" in the previous part of the sentence, it would make sense in relationship to "warding off" but not to "block". It makes no sense to block an opponent who's trying to block you.

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.

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?

I mean at least Rut agrees with me!!

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.

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?