Enforcement for defenseless receiver

[Ralph Damren]

WORD FROM THE TOP : He's a defenseless player until he's a runner. Once he's a runner you have a runninmg play . The new rule was intended for the defenseless player = loose ball play = previous spot.

TWO IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER......

If contact accurrs prior to ball arrival = DPI/OPI

Don't always assume they want the completed catch if greater than 15, as the accepted penalty allows replay of the down.

 

[bama_stripes]

Don't always assume they want the completed catch if greater than 15, as the accepted penalty allows replay of the down.

Had that happen in our game just this past Friday.  Last play of first half, Team A throws a completed pass from the A-46 to the B-20, but there’s a  for DPI.  To the consternation of A’s fans, the penalty is accepted.

On the untimed down, Thunderfoot kicks a 56-yd FG to officially end the half. 

[ncwingman]

WORD FROM THE TOP : He's a defenseless player until he's a runner. Once he's a runner you have a runninmg play . The new rule was intended for the defenseless player = loose ball play = previous spot.

TWO IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER......

If contact accurrs prior to ball arrival = DPI/OPI

Don't always assume they want the completed catch if greater than 15, as the accepted penalty allows replay of the down.

 

I'm a little concerned with an unintended chilling effect of the new rule, however.

A88 is on a slant route and looks back over his shoulder to catch the pass. As he's running forward, but looking backwards, he secures possession of the pass and takes two steps before being able to get his head back around looking forward. In the meantime, B56 launches himself at A88, hitting shoulder to chest with A88's focus clearly in the opposite direction.

Is A88 defenseless in this scenario? Would you flag it for an excessive hit, or would you call it "clean" because A88 took two steps after securing possession of the ball? Two steps after the catch is absolutely during a running play, not a loose ball play.

If safety is the priority, this should be a flag all day long. If you focus just on the new rule and hold your flag because he's now a runner... why have the definition of a defenseless player at all? A88 may not fit the full definition of 2-32-16(b), but that doesn't mean he's fair game for any unnecessarily violent hit. The examples in 2-32-16 "are not limited to" and any example that ends on "well, technically..." misses the point.

[ilyazhito]

I've have to disagree. After a catch a new run starts. It would be the same as being tackled by the facemask. I'm enforcing from the end of the run.

I agree. Personal fouls by B usually have end of the run enforcement, so if the catch is a 0-yard run, the foul can be enforced from the spot of the catch.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I agree. Personal fouls by B usually have end of the run enforcement, so if the catch is a 0-yard run, the foul can be enforced from the spot of the catch.

Agreed.

[CalhounLJ]

I'm a little concerned with an unintended chilling effect of the new rule, however.

A88 is on a slant route and looks back over his shoulder to catch the pass. As he's running forward, but looking backwards, he secures possession of the pass and takes two steps before being able to get his head back around looking forward. In the meantime, B56 launches himself at A88, hitting shoulder to chest with A88's focus clearly in the opposite direction.

Is A88 defenseless in this scenario? Would you flag it for an excessive hit, or would you call it "clean" because A88 took two steps after securing possession of the ball? Two steps after the catch is absolutely during a running play, not a loose ball play.

If safety is the priority, this should be a flag all day long. If you focus just on the new rule and hold your flag because he's now a runner... why have the definition of a defenseless player at all? A88 may not fit the full definition of 2-32-16(b), but that doesn't mean he's fair game for any unnecessarily violent hit. The examples in 2-32-16 "are not limited to" and any example that ends on "well, technically..." misses the point.

I agree. I’m flagging this for an excessive hit against a defenseless player, tacking it on to the end of the run.

[KDJBBBJ]

I would say two things.
 First if the timing of the hit is where you would have called it incomplete pass  had he dropped it, then he is still a receiver and would have to make an open hands or wrap up hit.
 second. I think if you were to take the pass out of the play and he had just taken a handoff and was looking at a defender to his left and one came in from the right and  lit him up would you throw a personal foul on the hit.  Then it is the same if he took two steps after completing the catch.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I would say two things.
 First if the timing of the hit is where you would have called it incomplete pass  had he dropped it, then he is still a receiver and would have to make an open hands or wrap up hit.
 second. I think if you were to take the pass out of the play and he had just taken a handoff and was looking at a defender to his left and one came in from the right and  lit him up would you throw a personal foul on the hit.  Then it is the same if he took two steps after completing the catch.

A word of caution here in that even if the "hit" is big, if in our judgement B is actually attempting to make a play on the ball, then I would think twice before throwing a flag.