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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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)

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.

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.

potential
[puh-ten-shuh l]
adjective
1. possible, as opposed to actual

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potential

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,

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.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read! :eek:

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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 want to see pictures and video. ;)

Peace

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!!!!

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.
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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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?

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

Peace

I coached Linebackers and was a DC for 5 years coached OL too.

so if he is moing away it is IUH according to 9-2-3d

There's a few things that might be called for here. The better view is the end zone shot at the end of the clip.

The hit is made with the ball in the air, so DPI is a possibility. In codes where the possibility of the contacted player's catching the ball is an issue, it's not DPI because it's obvious that receiver could not have caught that ball. In Fed, however, it could be said that the contact prevented the receiver from moving toward the flight of the ball. However, since the receiver had settled & turned around, I don't think the hit prevented that either. So no DPI.

Is it an illegal block for contacting the opponent in the back (with hands in this case)? The opponent presented the back, true, but the defender had plenty of time to react to that. The white receiver did seem to be backing up toward the position of red #32, but that movement was slight, and #32 definitely produced the contact. So I would have an illegal contact there. And that has nothing to do w whether he was eligible to receive a pass or even whether a pass was still possible on the play.

But what I'm really seeing is something more serious: a gratuitous blind shot by #32 when he sees it will be away from the play. He waits for the ball to be released, then hits the opponent; both of them can see the pass, neither of them expect to be part of the play. So the white receiver can be expected to have relaxed & provided an easy target. And maybe #32 even thinks no official will be looking that way, even though the black hat momentarily turns toward him after the hit. But the worst part about it is, he's cheap-shotting a teammate in a lousy intrasquad scrimmage! But then, that's where some of the nastiest stuff goes on, in my experience with children. They're practicing & competing around & with each other all the time, & animosities develop to a greater degree than they'd get a chance to vs. opponents in games. #32 helps him up afterward, and I don't think there was any intention to injure or even intimidate, but I'm guessing he was sending a message. So I've got a personal foul, contact that's unnecessary & may tend to provoke roughness, however Fed calls it, superseding the 10-yarder.