Enforcement for defenseless receiver

[bmem66]

I am from Ohio and I am sure this has been beaten to death but we still can't come up with a definite answer on how this is enforced.   We have been told that a receiver who still makes the catch and is fouled as a defenseless receiver that we will NOT be tacking on the on yardage.   Agree or disagree?    I am not too sure how to enforce this rule.   

Previous spot is always where the ball was snapped

So

Incomplete pass= 15 from previous spot
Completed pass = 15 from previous spot
Gain of 10 yards= 15 yards from previous spot
Gain of 20 yards = decline the foul
 

[sczeebra]

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.

[ncwingman]

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.

Remember when a catch is made though. If a receiver jumps in the air, secures the ball in his hands and a defender takes his legs out from under him before he lands, the receiver did not complete the catch before the foul. In this situation, it's kind of like a DPI scenario where you don't get bonus yardage on top of the completed pass.

If the receiver does possess the ball, on the ground and is hit while still defenseless, then I agree that the foul occurred during a running play after the loose ball play and has running play enforcement. Also, if it's really close on timing, benefit of the doubt goes to the receiver for safety reasons.

[zebraken]

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 don’t believe an established runner can ever be considered defenseless

[zebraken]

I should add, unless the runner is already in the grasp of another tackler

[VALJ]

By rule, he has not completed the catch until he returns to the ground. If he’s hit in the air, it’s part of a loose ball play, which would be enforced previous spot, as the only “tack on” loose ball foul is RTP.

By philosophy, I wouldn’t mind doing anything I can to rule that the contact happened after he returned to the ground and possessed the ball, thereby completing the catch, in which case the foul would occur during a running play and could be enforced from the end of the related run.

[VALJ]

I don’t believe an established runner can ever be considered defenseless

Be careful with “ever” or “never” when it comes to rules.  2-32-16-e provides an example of a defenseless runner.

[zebraken]

Be careful with “ever” or “never” when it comes to rules.  2-32-16-e provides an example of a defenseless runner.

Thanks Val. That’s exactly why I added “ unless he is in the grasp of another tackler”.  So in this case, no matter what you try to come up with it couldn’t be a foul against against a defenseless player once he establishes himself as a runner.

[mhez141]

I don’t believe an established runner can ever be considered defenseless

Also need to add 2-32-16g  "runner who has given himself up and is sliding feet-first"

[zebraken]

I don’t believe an established runner can ever be considered defenseless

Also need to add 2-32-16g  "runner who has given himself up and is sliding feet-first"

That’s incorrect. At the point he slides on the ground he is no longer a defenseless runner he is a defenseless player.

[CalhounLJ]

That’s incorrect. At the point he slides on the ground he is no longer a defenseless runner he is a defenseless player.

That's a horrible take and even worse attempt to split hairs.

[zebraken]

That's a horrible take and even worse attempt to split hairs.

It’s not my take, it’s the rule.I think it’s important to differentiate the two. Sometimes we have to split hairs to decide whether we are going to enforce from the end of the run or the succeeding spot.

[CalhounLJ]

It’s not my take, it’s the rule.I think it’s important to differentiate the two. Sometimes we have to split hairs to decide whether we are going to enforce from the end of the run or the succeeding spot.

Give me an example.

[zebraken]

Give me an example.
[/quote

If you have defensive holding on a running play and the runner slides to give himself just as the defense commits helmet to helmet contact on him, you have to decide whether the ball was live or dead when that occurred. If you have it happening as a live ball you have multiple fouls. The offense can pick one or the other to enforce and the enforcement would be at the end of the run. If you have it happening after the runner hit the ground you have a dead ball foul which would be enforced at the succeeding spot.

[zebraken]

Sorry. I didn’t mean to include that into the quote box

[CalhounLJ]

Sorry. I didn’t mean to include that into the quote box

Not a problem but that’s a bad example. In that case we would enforce both fouls. You are focusing on ball status. Not player status. A runner sliding is a defenseless player. There is no benefit in trying to distinguish if and at what point he ceases to be a runner. The only thing that matters is whether he’s defenseless and if so was the foul live ball or dead ball.

[zebraken]

Not a problem but that’s a bad example. In that case we would enforce both fouls. You are focusing on ball status. Not player status. A runner sliding is a defenseless player. There is no benefit in trying to distinguish if and at what point he ceases to be a runner. The only thing that matters is whether he’s defenseless and if so was the foul live ball or dead ball.

I agree with you and I think we are both hung up on semantics

[bama_stripes]

Sorry. I didn’t mean to include that into the quote box

There’s a Preview function available....

[zebraken]

There’s a Preview function available....
[/quote

Ah, yes, now I see how that works. Thank you for pointing that out to me

[CalhounLJ]

s

[refjeff]

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.

After the catch he is a runner and no longer a receiver.

[ncwingman]

After the catch he is a runner and no longer a receiver.

I feel that is the least important part of this rule change.

A88 jumps in the air to catch a pass, and secures the ball in his hands while still airborne. B56 launches himself shoulder-first at A88 and hits him shoulder to back a half second after A88's foot touches the ground in bounds.

Is this not a hit on a defenseless receiver because A88 technically completed the catch and is therefore no longer a receiver?

Of course not, that's absurd. The rule states that the player is defenseless if he has "not had time to clearly become a runner". He can absolutely complete the catch, become a runner momentarily and still be a defenseless receiver -- and for safety purposes, I'm erring on the side of caution here and, if he doesn't lose possession of the ball after the hit, I'd be inclined to enforce from the end of the (albeit very brief) run.

I do see this starting to get into the weeds of the NFL definition of "an act common to the game" or whatever-the-devil language they're using these days... and when that starts up, I'mma head out.

[bama_stripes]

We’re getting to the point where any “blow him up” hit is illegal, unless it’s on a runner, or is initiated with open hands or a wrapup tackle as part of the contact.

I’m OK with that as part of making the game safer, even though those were considered just good football plays back in my day.

[refjeff]

I feel that is the least important part of this rule change.

A88 jumps in the air to catch a pass, and secures the ball in his hands while still airborne. B56 launches himself shoulder-first at A88 and hits him shoulder to back a half second after A88's foot touches the ground in bounds.

Is this not a hit on a defenseless receiver because A88 technically completed the catch and is therefore no longer a receiver?

Of course not, that's absurd. The rule states that the player is defenseless if he has "not had time to clearly become a runner". He can absolutely complete the catch, become a runner momentarily and still be a defenseless receiver -- and for safety purposes, I'm erring on the side of caution here and, if he doesn't lose possession of the ball after the hit, I'd be inclined to enforce from the end of the (albeit very brief) run.

I do see this starting to get into the weeds of the NFL definition of "an act common to the game" or whatever-the-devil language they're using these days... and when that starts up, I'mma head out.

  In the state of Ohio, by official interpretation, once the catch is complete he is a runner.

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree.  I am just saying that is the most recent state-level interpretation.

[ncwingman]

  In the state of Ohio, by official interpretation, once the catch is complete he is a runner.

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree.  I am just saying that is the most recent state-level interpretation.

By technical definition this is correct. However, a hit on a defenseless player can and should be a foul regardless of "receiver" or "runner" status, especially if he's technically a runner by only the slimmest of margins. 2-32-16: "When in question, a player is defenseless"

Teddy Roosevelt is credited with cleaning up football in the early 1900's because he wanted the sport to continue, and knew that it couldn't if players were constantly being severely injured or killed on the field. While we're no longer seeing traumatic, immediate death on the field, the discovery and diagnosis of CTE leading to poor quality and shortened lives in former players means we need a new Teddy to help enforce new rules so we can continue playing the sport safely. The focus should be on the safety aspect and outlawing dangerous plays without worrying about technicalities in the rules.