New criteria for defenseless player ?

[Brian26]

Not sure I understand the new criteria on the defenseless player concerning the receiver/defender when attempting a catch. Does the receiver/defender still have to have time to become a runner in 2-33-16b along with either attempted tackle or contacted with open hands in 2-33-16d & c? Or as long as the contact is with open hands or attempted tackle the receiver/defender doesn't have to have time to be a runner??

[HLinNC]

Reddings Guide says this: " New in 2023 The definition of the above types of receivers has been expanded to include all contact which is not: Incidental contact as result of making a play on the ball; Initiated with open hands; An attempt to tackle by wrapping arm(s) around the receiver (2-32-16d). "

The aforementioned 2 types of receivers are: 1) a receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner; and 2) the intendedreceiver of a pass in the action during and immediately following an interception, or potential interception.

[Brian26]

Reddings Guide says this: " New in 2023 The definition of the above types of receivers has been expanded to include all contact which is not: Incidental contact as result of making a play on the ball; Initiated with open hands; An attempt to tackle by wrapping arm(s) around the receiver (2-32-16d). "

The aforementioned 2 types of receivers are: 1) a receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner; and 2) the intended receiver of a pass in the action during and immediately following an interception, or potential interception.

So all the above has to be met to be a legal hit? If so I'm not sure why they would add the new criteria. Unless I'm not getting it, the way contact is made is irrelevant if the receiver/defender attempting to make the catch hasn't had time to become a runner. All contact even open hands and attempted tackle would be illegal.

[HLinNC]

No.  I think you've got it backwards.

My take- without a new rule book nor state clinic yet held- is that they are saying for contact on a receiver who has not yet become a runner to be legal; 1) legal contact can be incidental going for the ball they are entitled to possess, i.e. bumping chests, shoulders, arms etc. while both going for the ball 2) legal contact may be made with open hands, or 3) legal contact may be made by wrapping one or both arms around the receiver in an attempt to tackle the receiver.

What will not be allowed are "kill shots", i.e. forcible contact with shoulder, chest, or upper arm anywhere, not just the head and neck area of the receiver.  Think of blindside block parameters, minus the wrapping up with arm(s).

The NC state clinics begin on June 26 and we usually get the NFHS power point presentation along with it.  I normally post the link when it is available.

[Ralph Damren]

Not sure I understand the new criteria on the defenseless player concerning the receiver/defender when attempting a catch. Does the receiver/defender still have to have time to become a runner in 2-33-16b along with either attempted tackle or contacted with open hands in 2-33-16d & c? Or as long as the contact is with open hands or attempted tackle the receiver/defender doesn't have to have time to be a runner??

In layman's terms, ya' can't 'light-up' a reciever. On occation a D-back will try to time his contact wit the reciever a split-second after the ball arrives in hope of breaking up the pass. The harder the hit the better chance of the pass being dropped. In the interest of safety, such hit is limited to : Open hands, playing the ball or wrap-tackle. Once the reciever has become a runner he no longer is a defenseless player.

POSSIBLE FAN REACTION :

RECIEVER LIT UP  (CHEER); FLAGS FLY    (JEER) ; PENALTY ENFORCED  :'( (TEAR)

[Brian26]

In layman's terms, ya' can't 'light-up' a reciever. On occation a D-back will try to time his contact wit the reciever a split-second after the ball arrives in hope of breaking up the pass. The harder the hit the better chance of the pass being dropped. In the interest of safety, such hit is limited to : Open hands, playing the ball or wrap-tackle. Once the reciever has become a runner he no longer is a defenseless player.

POSSIBLE FAN REACTION :

RECIEVER LIT UP  (CHEER); FLAGS FLY    (JEER) ; PENALTY ENFORCED  :'( (TEAR)

No.  I think you've got it backwards.

My take- without a new rule book nor state clinic yet held- is that they are saying for contact on a receiver who has not yet become a runner to be legal; 1) legal contact can be incidental going for the ball they are entitled to possess, i.e. bumping chests, shoulders, arms etc. while both going for the ball 2) legal contact may be made with open hands, or 3) legal contact may be made by wrapping one or both arms around the receiver in an attempt to tackle the receiver.

What will not be allowed are "kill shots", i.e. forcible contact with shoulder, chest, or upper arm anywhere, not just the head and neck area of the receiver.  Think of blindside block parameters, minus the wrapping up with arm(s).

The NC state clinics begin on June 26 and we usually get the NFHS power point presentation along with it.  I normally post the link when it is available.

Makes sense, so now the defender has a couple options to make a legal hit before receiver has a chance to become a runner where as before new criteria they didn't.

[HLinNC]

so now the defender has a couple options to make a legal hit before receiver has a chance to become a runner where as before new criteria they didn't.

Essentially the defender now has two basic ways to make legal contact with a receiver where as before, unless it was targeting or PF-UNR, he had additional methods.  As I said previously, think of it as being similar to the blindside block rule where prior to the implementation of that, the blocker could make a legal hit (crackback) using the shoulder, arms, or upper body into the blockee.  Since the rule was added, the blocker must make contact with his hands.  It is a similar principle.

[Ralph Damren]

And probably, as with both targt. eting and blindside blocking, we except to see a smattering of the 'light-ups' occurring until the players fully realize the costs of 15 yards isn't worth it. I don't feel that enforcing the new rule will be anymore of a challange than the enforcement of either targeeting or the blindside block.

[KWH]

As a member of one of the experimental states for this rule (Oregon) I can attest this rule is much easier to teach and for players, coaches, officials and fans to absorb and understand than say Blindside Block.
By week 4, most everyone should be on the same page.

[VALJ]

As a member of one of the experimental states for this rule (Oregon) I can attest this rule is much easier to teach and for players, coaches, officials and fans to absorb and understand than say Blindside Block.
By week 4, most everyone should be on the same page.

I think it helps too that we had the growing pains of the defenseless player and the BSB years ago. People have accepted that the game isn’t the same as when we were in high school. The game has changed- as well it should. So it’s easier to get folks to adapt to it.

[AlUpstateNY]

I think it helps too that we had the growing pains of the defenseless player and the BSB years ago. People have accepted that the game isn’t the same as when we were in high school. The game has changed- as well it should. So it’s easier to get folks to adapt to it.

Perhaps, not so much that "the game has changed" as much as the language of the game  (and language itself) has expanded to suggest multiple additional ,nuanced versions of what words "might be expanded to include"  in addition to what they were specifically intended, or designed,  to mean.

[jason]

No.  I think you've got it backwards.

My take- without a new rule book nor state clinic yet held- is that they are saying for contact on a receiver who has not yet become a runner to be legal; 1) legal contact can be incidental going for the ball they are entitled to possess, i.e. bumping chests, shoulders, arms etc. while both going for the ball 2) legal contact may be made with open hands, or 3) legal contact may be made by wrapping one or both arms around the receiver in an attempt to tackle the receiver.

What will not be allowed are "kill shots", i.e. forcible contact with shoulder, chest, or upper arm anywhere, not just the head and neck area of the receiver.  Think of blindside block parameters, minus the wrapping up with arm(s).

I think I know the answer before I ask it - and I hate to ask it - but are we saying with this new defenseless receiver change that the classic Reggie Bush hit is now illegal? The key here for my understanding is whether or not "blowing up defenseless receiver" trumps "wrapping up with arm(s)" (hence my highlighting).

You can literally pause the video and see the defender's head to the side, with arms wide to make a wrap up tackle like kids have been instructed to do since leather helmets, but because the speed and impact carry enough force - ya know, the thing that separates a receiver from the ball - it's now a foul.

The video for reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArR7Wk2R8tw

I can't wait for week zero when the coaches realize what this change really means.

[bama_stripes]

The question we will have to answer is: Was this a legitimate attempt to make a tackle, or an attempt to separate the ball from the receiver.

[AlUpstateNY]

The question we will have to answer is: Was this a legitimate attempt to make a tackle, or an attempt to separate the ball from the receiver.

Really, not a whole lot has changed, other than an effort to add some clarity & specifics to identify & clarify the "Cheap Shot/Kill Shot".  As with "BSB/Defenseless Player" the "Open hand" contact provides an emphasized avoidance option.  However like "Beauty" the ultimate judgment will reside/remain in "the eye of the beholder"(covering official). 

[NVFOA_Ump]

So on a pass play where reciever A-85 is covered closely by defensive back B-22 and linebacker B-55 realizes that the pass is in his area and he heads back at full speed while tracking the pass and with hands up trying to intercept violently collides with A-85 who is at his back and coming towards him at full speed we have nothing since both players were clearly trying to catch the pass?

[HLinNC]

all contact which is not: Incidental contact as result of making a play on the ball;

[Etref]

It is like porn,

You’ll know it when you see it!

[ncwingman]

I think I know the answer before I ask it - and I hate to ask it - but are we saying with this new defenseless receiver change that the classic Reggie Bush hit is now illegal? The key here for my understanding is whether or not "blowing up defenseless receiver" trumps "wrapping up with arm(s)" (hence my highlighting).

In my opinion of reading the new rule, the answer is unequivocally "yes". The intent of the rule is to eliminate (or severely lessen) violent hits for the sake of being violent hits.  Violently separating the person from the ball is not an attempt to tackle.

You can literally pause the video and see the defender's head to the side, with arms wide to make a wrap up tackle like kids have been instructed to do since leather helmets, but because the speed and impact carry enough force - ya know, the thing that separates a receiver from the ball - it's now a foul.

The video for reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArR7Wk2R8tw

I can't wait for week zero when the coaches realize what this change really means.

This is also a case where the fundamental comes in -- when in doubt, it is a foul. This is a safety issue, especially at the high school level. If you launch yourself Superman style at a receiver with the intent of making a hit, rather than wrapping up a tackle, then that should be a foul more often than not. If your arms were "to the side", as in your video, but the speed and impact preclude you from making any legitimate "wrapping up" motion, then you are not "wrapping up" regardless of where your arms are.

However, like others have said, you'll know it when you see it.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The  " ... you'll know it when you see it." guidance is fine for veteran officials but not so much for younger/newer officials who like to have clear rules guidance.   

[HLinNC]

https://youtu.be/8Fxut8lpB5M

Pretty good video on the topic released by OCFOA Mark Andrews (CIF).

[Badger1]

The following scenario has been bothering me regarding a hit to a defenseless receiver.  I know that if the hit by the defensive player is illegal and the pass is incomplete, the foul is enforced from the previous spot (15 yards).  What about a defenseless receiver 20 yards down field who catches a pass while airborne and is hit illegally by the defensive player while the receiver is still in the air but maintains control of the ball when he contacts the ground to complete the catch?  I realize the options would be 15 yards previous spot or take the result of the play (20 yard gain), but that would mean you would have to decline a personal foul since the foul occurred during a loose ball play.  I don't think I have ever seen a coach decline a personal foul penalty against an opponent and I would think the offensive coach would be lobbying for the penalty to be tacked on to the end of the completion.  Your thoughts.  Thanks.

[dammitbobby]

From a related thread, check out the table in 10-4. (bottom of the post)

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=16584.msg168707#msg168707

Foul by B -> Foul Was Beyond the LOS -> End of Play Was Beyond LOS -> Succeeding spot.

[Snapper]

The following scenario has been bothering me regarding a hit to a defenseless receiver.  I know that if the hit by the defensive player is illegal and the pass is incomplete, the foul is enforced from the previous spot (15 yards).  What about a defenseless receiver 20 yards down field who catches a pass while airborne and is hit illegally by the defensive player while the receiver is still in the air but maintains control of the ball when he contacts the ground to complete the catch?  I realize the options would be 15 yards previous spot or take the result of the play (20 yard gain), but that would mean you would have to decline a personal foul since the foul occurred during a loose ball play.  I don't think I have ever seen a coach decline a personal foul penalty against an opponent and I would think the offensive coach would be lobbying for the penalty to be tacked on to the end of the completion.  Your thoughts.  Thanks.

It should also be interesting for you when the offended coach has seen college games where they do tack a personal foul onto a completed pass.  NCAA rules sort of have the philosophy that, except for kind of rare instances, Personal Fouls and Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls should be penalized, so they usually have a logical spot that they can be enforced from.  Fed, until the last few years anyway, sort of have a philosophy of keeping things as simple as possible.  Simpler might mean a bit less fair in some instances.

[Badger1]

 I would agree with that if the play was a running play where the foul occurred beyond the LOS.  However, what I am saying is that the receiver was fouled while in the air catching a pass and didn't establish himself as a runner until he made contact with the ground with possession and as such I believe the foul occurred during a loose ball play.

[Snapper]

From a related thread, check out the table in 10-4. (bottom of the post)

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=16584.msg168707#msg168707

Foul by B -> Foul Was Beyond the LOS -> End of Play Was Beyond LOS -> Succeeding spot.

I wouldn't put much weight into that chart yet.  The NFHS football editor and editorial committee totally screwed things up.  Supposedly it's being fixed, but not everyone in the country have seen their books and/or the fixes yet.  (Unlike the NCAA, which started their rules process later than the Fed, and has had their changes and books in everyone's hands for quite awhile now.  And whether you do or don't like the NCAA changes, they didn't screw them up spectacularly.)