contact before the ball is thrown

[toma]

Passing situation; A 84 running his route and D-Back B24 comes up and blocks him to the ground. The hit is before a pass is thrown and above the waist and in front. With A84 on the ground QB-A12 throws a pass to another receiver. Legal?

A 84 running his route and D-Back B24 comes up and blocks him to the ground as the pass is thrown to another receiver on the other side of the field. The block is above the waist and in front. Legal?

[ElvisLives]

Passing situation; A 84 running his route and D-Back B24 comes up and blocks him to the ground. The hit is before a pass is thrown and above the waist and in front. With A84 on the ground QB-A12 throws a pass to another receiver. Legal?

A 84 running his route and D-Back B24 comes up and blocks him to the ground as the pass is thrown to another receiver on the other side of the field. The block is above the waist and in front. Legal?

No foul, in either case.
Players of both teams may legally block opponents at any time, and any where, on the field, without regard to where the ball carrier may be.  Legally blocking means NOT contact that is targeting, illegally below the waist, clipping, an illegal block in the back, etc.  When a pass has been thrown, players of either team may not contact opponents in such a way that it impedes or obstructs the opponent in his effort to catch the ball.  If the ball is completely uncatchable to the opponent, then the contact is not pass interference, although it could be some other foul.
In the two cases you presented, the blocks were completely legal, in, and of, themselves. And, the blocks did not impede or obstruct any eligible receiver's attempt to catch a legal forward pass.

In the first play, that is just great defense.  No better way to break up a pass pattern than to legally block the receiver to the ground before the pass is thrown.

In the second play, the receiver that got blocked had no opportunity to receive a catchable legal forward pass, and the block was otherwise legal.

Next down.

Robert

 

[Clear Lake ref]

Just make sure it’s a block and not a hold.

Also, for reference, not every player may be blocked at any time. A player obviously out of the play, ie a defender slowly jogging during a long TD run, may not be blocked.

[ElvisLives]

That's why I said "legally" blocked.  The point was that players of either team may block opponents even if the block is well remote from the ball carrier.  They don't have to be attempting to get to the ball carrier (defense) or directly blocking for the BC (offense), as long as they make a block that is otherwise legal.  A player could be 40 yards behind the play, and throw a block on an opponent, while the ball is alive, from the front, above the waist, below the neck, with no grasping or clamping involved, and with the opponent fully aware of the impending block, and the block would be legal, by rule.  The player being blocked, and his coaching staff, probably won't like it.  It will probably require some action on our part to separate them before it escalates into an altercation.  But, until that point, there is no flag to be thrown.

Robert

[Kalle]

No foul, in either case.
Players of both teams may legally block opponents at any time,

If the roles are reversed wouldn't it be OPI in the first case no matter where the ball is thrown?

[ElvisLives]

If the roles are reversed wouldn't it be OPI in the first case no matter where the ball is thrown?

Yes.  There I go again.  Trying to oversimplify things.  But, A players may not initiate contact more than one yard beyond the NZ if a legal forward pass subsequently crosses the NZ, until the pass is touched by any player or an official.   So, even an otherwise legal block would be OPI, under those circumstances.

Very little simple, in this game.

Hope all is well with you, Kalle.

Robert

[Kalle]

Yes.  There I go again.  Trying to oversimplify things.  But, A players may not initiate contact more than one yard beyond the NZ if a legal forward pass subsequently crosses the NZ, until the pass is touched by any player or an official.   So, even an otherwise legal block would be OPI, under those circumstances.

Very little simple, in this game.

Hope all is well with you, Kalle.

Robert

And to complicate things further, since 2003(ish) that one yard exception has applied only to originally ineligible team A players. Eligible players may not initiate contact anywhere beyond the NZ.

Thing are good here although our season just ended. We even get some live NCAA football on TV this fall, starting with New Hampshire at Colorado tonight.

[ElvisLives]

Eligible players may not initiate contact anywhere beyond the NZ. 
👍

Thing are good here although our season just ended. We even get some live NCAA football on TV this fall, starting with New Hampshire at Colorado tonight.

If you just completed your season, did you use 2017 rules?  Or, 2018?  If 2018, does that work with bulletins and clarifications of new rules only coming out in late August, at the soonest?

[Kalle]

If you just completed your season, did you use 2017 rules?  Or, 2018?  If 2018, does that work with bulletins and clarifications of new rules only coming out in late August, at the soonest?

IFAF countries are always one year behind NCAA changes, so we worked our season (and some remaining international games) with 2017 rules, that way we get some input from NCAA games as to how the new rule changes actually work out The IFAF rules committee is currently processing the NCAA 2018 changes and should be sending the ones IFAF adopts out for comments soon (IFAF usually adopts all real playing rules, but might not adopt all rule 1 changes).

[dvasques]

Do you think IFAF will go for the new kickoff and play clock rules?

[ElvisLives]

For what it is worth, the two items that have been the most difficult regarding the play clock are:
 1) many PCOs erroneously think the play clock is set to 40 and started immediately after a punt play with B in possession at the end of the down, and
 2) many PCOs erroneously think the play clock is set to 40 following a Try (i.e., for the interval between the Try and the kickoff).

No problem for the Try, and no problem for the first scrimmage play following a free kick.

Not sure how much impact the new play clock rules have had on game time.  Houston @ Texas Tech was 3:45, with 16 combined touchdowns.  Seems like lack of defense and TV commercials are the biggest contributors to the length of games. 

[Kalle]

Do you think IFAF will go for the new kickoff and play clock rules?

I don't think either solves any problem we have, but then again, I don't think either would create any new problems. I don't see a reason to change apart from following NCAA as closely as feasible, so my wild guess is that IFAF will adopt both.

I have no inside intel on the rules process, so the above is 100% personal opinion, and I'm fine either way.