New criteria for defenseless player ?

[HLinNC]

when the offended coach has seen college games

This happens virtually every Friday night.

Its why all this madness with rule changes eventually happens.

[AlUpstateNY]

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.

Haven't received thw 2023 Rule book yet, but unless there's a change to NFHS 2-4-1 a pass is either complete, or incomplete.  As for expanding NFHS 9-4 regarding contact with a potential receiver, either the expanded definition to include  a receiver's "defenselessness", and enforcement spot seems logically to follow 2-4-1.  If illegal contact, as now including a receiver as being defenseless, occurs prior to a pass being complete the enforcement is from the previous spot, if after NFHS 2-4-1 has been satisfied, enforcement would be the spot. 

If the contact was deemed illegal, on a yet to be completed pass, it would seem like Pass Interference would (also) apply).  If the illegal contact occurred on a completed pass, it would seem a Personal Foul would apply.  The object seems to be recognizing the illegality of unnecessary/defenseless contact, and the recommendation to consider excusing incidental contact with open hands as an exception to the defenseless nature of the receiver (but may still remain a consideration for Pass Interference).  Seems like more of a language issue, other than call attention to a problem are, that apparently need emphasis. 

[refjeff]

Haven't received thw 2023 Rule book yet, but unless there's a change to NFHS 2-4-1 a pass is either complete, or incomplete.  As for expanding NFHS 9-4 regarding contact with a potential receiver, either the expanded definition to include  a receiver's "defenselessness", and enforcement spot seems logically to follow 2-4-1.  If illegal contact, as now including a receiver as being defenseless, occurs prior to a pass being complete the enforcement is from the previous spot, if after NFHS 2-4-1 has been satisfied, enforcement would be the spot. 

If the contact was deemed illegal, on a yet to be completed pass, it would seem like Pass Interference would (also) apply).  If the illegal contact occurred on a completed pass, it would seem a Personal Foul would apply.  The object seems to be recognizing the illegality of unnecessary/defenseless contact, and the recommendation to consider excusing incidental contact with open hands as an exception to the defenseless nature of the receiver (but may still remain a consideration for Pass Interference).  Seems like more of a language issue, other than call attention to a problem are, that apparently need emphasis.

If a receiver gets hit while he is bobbling the ball, or while still in the air, it is not DPI.

[HLinNC]

and the recommendation to consider excusing incidental contact with open hands as an exception to the defenseless nature of the receiver (

No, open hands is one of the two legal ways to make contact with a defenseless player that is a receiver.  The other is wrapping up with one or both arms in an attempt to make a tackle.

Incidental contact could be the DB bumping the receiver in the back or side while making a play for the ball, as an example.

[VALJ]

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.

“He was outside the tackle box” (pre rule change)
“That’s targeting - you have to eject him!”
“He can get back on our side of the neutral zone before the snap!”

It never changes - there’s always coaches who have someone else on the staff take the rules clinic, and they believe they’re playing under NCAA or NFL rules.  Some seasons, it seems like there are more of those than there are coaches who realize the rules are different in HS.

[jason]

No, open hands is one of the two legal ways to make contact with a defenseless player that is a receiver.  The other is wrapping up with one or both arms in an attempt to make a tackle.

Incidental contact could be the DB bumping the receiver in the back or side while making a play for the ball, as an example.

The highlighted portion is what I take issue with. It's opened yet another can of worms for officials to differentiate - from rookies to 30-year veterans - and decide whether something is a foul or not. Different states will lock down on it and value the force of the hit over the form of the defender, and others will judge the form over the force. In the end it's muddy water.

[HLinNC]

The highlighted portion is what I take issue with.

Do you think discerning whether or not wrapping up to make a tackle will be that hard?

[jason]

Do you think discerning whether or not wrapping up to make a tackle will be that hard?

I think it’s possible to blow up a receiver with arms stretched wide as in the traditional wrap up tackle, and there will be varying, inconsistent degrees from states, association, and individuals as to what constitutes a “wrap up tackle” and whether or not the end result (i.e. “wrap up tackle”) takes precedence over the aforementioned receiver getting blown up.

In other words, opinions vary, and this rule addition was poorly conceived.

[HLinNC]

Well, as long as the hands are open then that's a legal hit.

This foul is going to be predominantly called by wings and B's.  If they can't make a determination as to wrapping up then maybe it's time to move to U or wear the white hat.

[refjeff]

I think it’s possible to blow up a receiver with arms stretched wide as in the traditional wrap up tackle, and there will be varying, inconsistent degrees from states, association, and individuals as to what constitutes a “wrap up tackle” and whether or not the end result (i.e. “wrap up tackle”) takes precedence over the aforementioned receiver getting blown up.

In other words, opinions vary, and this rule addition was poorly conceived.

But no one ever does that unless they are attempting to wrap up the receiver so it shouldn't be a problem.

[CalhounLJ]

IMHO, it’s not difficult to distinguish between lowering a shoulder to blow up a player versus attempting to tackle by wrapping him up. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

I think it’s possible to blow up a receiver with arms stretched wide as in the traditional wrap up tackle, and there will be varying, inconsistent degrees from states, association, and individuals as to what constitutes a “wrap up tackle” and whether or not the end result (i.e. “wrap up tackle”) takes precedence over the aforementioned receiver getting blown up.

In other words, opinions vary, and this rule addition was poorly conceived.

I agree that things will be a bit inconsistent at first. For example, I think we disagree on where that line is -- in terms of safety based rules, when in doubt, it is a foul. If a defender launches himself like a missile at a defenseless reciever, I'm going to have to be convinced *not* to throw the flag.

Eventually, I think any hit where a player gets "blown up" is going to be a foul, regardless of "defenseless" status or "leading with open hands" etc. -- and it needs to be from a safety perspective, especially at the high school and younger level. It's not there yet, and I'm not going rogue and calling it like that, but that's where I want to see the rules end up soon.

[AlUpstateNY]

I agree that things will be a bit inconsistent at first. For example, I think we disagree on where that line is -- in terms of safety based rules, when in doubt, it is a foul. If a defender launches himself like a missile at a defenseless reciever, I'm going to have to be convinced *not* to throw the flag.

Eventually, I think any hit where a player gets "blown up" is going to be a foul, regardless of "defenseless" status or "leading with open hands" etc. -- and it needs to be from a safety perspective, especially at the high school and younger level. It's not there yet, and I'm not going rogue and calling it like that, but that's where I want to see the rules end up soon.

I think you're right. We have been making judgments on what is a "Cheap Shot", "Blowing up", or any other description of excessive contact/punishment for decades.  This rule revision seems to provide "open hand extended" and "Wrapping-up" as specific potential ways to avoid such conclusions.  "A rose by any name...", seems to apply to the word "excessive" as well.  It still ALL DEPENDS on what we actually see during both the prelude through the actual contact.

[Ralph Damren]

We were told, from the three states that ran this as an experimental rule, that this was easier to adjust to as the targeting and blindside block rules.

[Fatso]

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 a nutshell, I believe it means no more 'big hit' with shoulder or forearm only, like when trying to jar the ball loose just as receiver touches it.  You can do that if you make the hit with open hands or make the hit while wrapping up and attempt to tackle.  No more kill shot type hits.   (we've only had a couple meetings so far and we're still waiting on additional guidance from our state, but this is basic interpretation so far....).

[HLinNC]

Sounds like you've got it down, Fatso.

[VALJ]

In a nutshell, I believe it means no more 'big hit' with shoulder or forearm only, like when trying to jar the ball loose just as receiver touches it.  You can do that if you make the hit with open hands or make the hit while wrapping up and attempt to tackle.  No more kill shot type hits.   (we've only had a couple meetings so far and we're still waiting on additional guidance from our state, but this is basic interpretation so far....).

My understanding is that it must be either incidental contact while both are playing the ball, a wrap up tackle, or a shove.