RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: sj_31 on August 04, 2014, 10:16:53 PM
-
Question regarding Illegal Use of Hands, specifically 9-2-3-d, "The defense shall not contact an eligible receiver who is no longer an eligible blocker."
What are the various philosophies that are out there in associations.
There are some that say if it's not holding or DPI that linebackers can "reroute" tight ends running a drag route across their face even if he's looking back for the ball because anyone in front of especially an LB is a potential blocker to him. Conversely, some say that LBs and other defenders should know the difference between a route and offensive player coming to get him.
Even though it's not in the Fed rulebook, using the NCAA rule of "same yard line" is an otherwise good metric as obviously if a receiver makes it to the same yardline then he's not interesting in blocking the defender.
I'm much more interested in the "rerouting" that coaches are teaching...
What say you, officiating Internet?
-
Once the receiver is even with or past the defender, he is no longer a blocker. See Case Book Play 9.2.3.A
-
That's only part of the equation, 9.2.3.A implies more than just "same yard line" philosophy.
In other words, what could a linebacker do to a receiver who is NOT at the same yard line yet that would be ILH?
-
Well obviously he could not use his hands above the shoulders. Otherwise the ruling for 9.2.3 A is about as definitive as it gets.
"RULING: Illegal use of hands by B1. A defender may legally contact an eligible receiver beyond the neutral zone before the pass is in flight. The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to block by pushing or pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attempting to block
or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use hands in the manner described. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)"
A receiver looking back for the ball wouldn't be attempting to block.
Too many officials appear to not want to utilize the case book or argue that "it isn't the rule book". While it can be poorly written in spots and doesn't always have the exact case to reference, in your discussion it appears to answer the question as simply as it can.
-
For those of us that feel "a picture is worth a thousand words", page 168 of the S & I does a good job on this issue.
-
Too many officials appear to not want to utilize the case book or argue that "it isn't the rule book". While it can be poorly written in spots and doesn't always have the exact case to reference, in your discussion it appears to answer the question as simply as it can.
Because some of us have WH's who _refuse_ to enforce this. When I was a young official, I flagged a LB that de-cleated a dragging TE who was looking back at the QB. My WH told me he would wave that flag off every single time. Either you have PI, holding, or nothing.
-
Under the new POE wouldn't that decleating be considered Unnecessary Roughness even to the point of Flagrant??
BLOCKING – USE OF HANDS
9.2.3 SITUATION A: End A1 sprints from the line and then cuts sharply toward
the middle of the field. A1 makes no attempt to block defensive back B1. B1 pursues
A1 and pushes him from the side using his open hands. Contact is made on
A1’s upper arm before the pass is thrown. A1 was moving away from B1 when
the contact occurred. RULING: Illegal use of hands by B1. A defender may legally
contact an eligible receiver beyond the neutral zone before the pass is in flight.
The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to
block by pushing or pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use
hands in the manner described. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a
potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)
-
Under the new POE wouldn't that decleating be considered Unnecessary Roughness even to the point of Flagrant??
If it was a foul before, it's a foul now. The new "rule" and POE change nothing.
-
So you are saying POEs are worthless?? I agree!
-
Question regarding Illegal Use of Hands, specifically 9-2-3-d, "The defense shall not contact an eligible receiver who is no longer an eligible blocker."
I'm much more interested in the "rerouting" that coaches are teaching...
Likely just a typo, but NF: 9-2-3-d correctly reads, "The defense shall not contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a POTENTIAL blocker. You might consider that the offense has a distinct advantage, in that they know whether the play is intended to be a run, or a pass, and the defense can't be certain UNTIL someone actually throws a (legal) pass.
As long as the offensive player poses a threat of blocking the defensive player, the defensive player is allowed to protect himself by legally contacting the threat. The threat exists until a legal forward pass is actually thrown. The judgment is simple, did a threat of blocking exist, or not.
POEs, unfortunately can be made "worthless" when individuals try to nit-pick them to death inventing ridiculous extremes that ignore common sense, logic and an understanding of the game.
-
Common sense says there are no free shots in HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL! If a MLB runs up and whacks the dragging TE who is not a threat but looking at the QB as he crosses in front of the LBS and knocks him down because that is the best way to take him out of the pattern then a flag should be thrown. It is definitely IUH as stated in 9-2-3d or BIB and should be called UR based on the cheap shot factor which is expressed in the 2015 POE!
Coaches should continue to educate their players about the risks of unnecessary or excessive contact
regardless of whether or not the contact occurs during a legal block or tackle. While the committee does not
believe players are coached to make unnecessary or excessive contact with opponents, coaches should clearly
instruct players to avoid such unsafe contact. Risk minimization applies equally to players on both teams.
Game officials need to be aware of situations that are likely to produce unnecessary or excessive
contact. Blindside blocks,
What is Excessive?
While the NFHS Football Rules now expressly preclude conduct that is “excessive” and “unnecessary,”
the rules have always barred efforts to injure or “take out” an opponent. Situations involving contact that exceed
what is usual, normal or proper must to be eliminated from the game.
Considering this potential for serious injury, it is critical that those situations involving unnecessary or
excessive contact on players are eliminated whether or not that contact is otherwise deemed legal.
. . A defensive player shall not:
a. Use a technique that is not permissible by rule. (See 2-3-2, 4)
b. Use his hands to add momentum to the charge of a teammate who is on
the line of scrimmage.
c. Use his hands or arms to hook, lock, clamp, grasp, encircle or hold in an
effort to restrain an opponent other than the runner.
d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.
It does not say contact with hands or arms, just contact!
-
Shakespeare advises, BigJohn, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and I suspect that applies to words like; "are excessive", "free/cheap shots", unnecessary, "blindside" and perhaps even "illegal" and it seems you and I may view things quite a bit differently. Common sense, on how those words actually apply to individual and specific situations, that are directly observed, may well be the deciding factor.
-
Where do you see the word THREAT???
However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to
Potential blocker does not mean anyone that could possibly block you, it means someone who actually is trying to block you!! If he is an eligible receiver, the rules say you can not contact him if he is not trying to block you or moving away from you(in any direction) or past you.
-
Where do you see the word THREAT??? However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to
John, if we're talking about football, ANY/EVERY opponent advancing towards you is a "THREAT" to legally contact you. Probably why the rule references "POTENTIAL" blocker.
Once the "THREAT" of POTENTIALLY being blocked, by an opponent who has moved past, or away from you, has been eliminated, there no longer exists a license, or need, to defend against him. Whether, or not, the THREAT of being subject to a POTENTIAL block is eliminated is a judgment call, by the covering game official.
-
Sounds reasonable but the Rules Book and Case Book say that an ELIGIBLE RECEIVER is a POTENTIAL BLOCKER only if:
1. He is trying to block you!!!!
However, if the receiver is not attempting to block
Rule 9-2-3d
A defensive player shall not:
d. Contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.
-
Do yourself a favor, John, Give up trying to be the word police. What rule, or Case Book play, uses the phrase "Trying to Block you" as being required to be a "potential blocker"?
When any player, eligible or not, is between a teammate in possession of a live ball and an opponent, he is a potential blocker, whether he actually tries to block that opponent, or not.
You're trying way to hard to twist words into suggesting what you (alone) think they should, and all you're winding up with is gnots.
-
What the HECK does "not attempting to block" mean????
BLOCKING – USE OF HANDS
9.2.3 SITUATION A: End A1 sprints from the line and then cuts sharply toward
the middle of the field. A1 makes no attempt to block defensive back B1. B1 pursues
A1 and pushes him from the side using his open hands. Contact is made on
A1’s upper arm before the pass is thrown. A1 was moving away from B1 when
the contact occurred. RULING: Illegal use of hands by B1. A defender may legally
contact an eligible receiver beyond the neutral zone before the pass is in flight.
The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to
block by pushing or pulling him. However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block or has gone past or is moving away, it is illegal for the defender to use
hands in the manner described. In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a
potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)
and if you read this phrase, any block other that pushing or pulling is not legal
The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to
block by pushing or pulling him
the CONTACT that is allowed is even defined!!!!
-
Sorry John, you're just making yourself sound silly. "Not attempting to block" and being a "potential blocker" are two distinctly different things which you should, and likely do, understand. You appear committed to making "a silk purse out of a sow's ear" rather than simply admit your entire premise is simply WRONG.
I've tried to reason with you, but you're just not willing to admit you're wrong. I give up.
-
It is pretty simple no one in the Fed wants to call this rule as written but bump coverage and rerouting are both illegal according to the rules. Once a Receiver in no longer attempting to block a DB he is supposed to be allowed to run his route without contact.
Any contact other than warding off a block on an eligible receiver should be flagged as IUH
-
IMHO, an eligible receiver/ potential blocker is a player running at a D-back. once the eligible receiver / potential blocker :
(1) Turns away from the D-back;
(2) is shoulder-to-shoulder - same yardline as the D-back;
He ain't trying to block him, and just becomes an eligible receiver with eligible receiver protection rules.
IMHO, receivers have a much better chance of dating the prom queen than D-backs or blockers.
IMHO, a Red Sox/ Cubbie World Series has a better chance of occurring that a NFHS chuck rule passing. tiphat:
-
I'm with BigJohn. Struggled with this since picking up officiating football.
-
I'm with BigJohn. Struggled with this since picking up officiating football.
What might help is to consider that NFHS rules are designed for Interscholastic football games, which are at times somewhat different than rules governing older, more talented players in NCAA and/or NFL games. Ralph's description above summarizes the NFHS rule well, when a receiver is even with (and passing) a defender, or moving away from a defender, he ceases bein a blocking threat.
If the defender is able to keep the receiver between himself and the ball, prior to the ball actually being thrown, the receiver remains a "potential" blocker from which the defender can legally protect himself.
-
So, here is that play that I've been advised not to throw a flag on but I still think is a foul. Receiver is on the LOS with DB at press coverage. Receiver immediately breaks to run an inside slant and he gets jammed by the DB. Is this a foul?
-
I have said it for a long time Bump or press coverage is illegal according to NFHS rules.
-
So, here is that play that I've been advised not to throw a flag on but I still think is a foul. Receiver is on the LOS with DB at press coverage. Receiver immediately breaks to run an inside slant and he gets jammed by the DB. Is this a foul?
There are some considerations, you might be overlooking; NO 2 plays are identical, so it all depends on the play you're looking at (rather than hypothetical), so there is no yes/no general answer.
The receiver has a distinct advantage in that he has advance notice of what the play is intended to be, the defender does not. The defender doesn't KNOW that the receiver is faking going inside and may quickly change direction to block him, and if the defender is close enough to "jam" the receiver, the receiver is close enough to be a potential blocker (Again something the receiver KNOWS, but not the defender).
As has been suggested, once the receiver is aside, or past, the defender or is running away from the defender he ceases being a threat to the defender, but the defender needs a reasonable opportunity to BUTTS the action unfolding and determine what that receiver's intentions may be. Not only does the defender need to assess the receivers actions, but the covering official does as well and applies judgment to a decision regarding whatever action is taken by the defender, as to whether it was illegal or permissible.
There is no "one size fits all" answer to the question, and until someone actually throws a legal forward pass, the defender cannot be certain what the receiver's intentions are. Some seem to have great difficulty accepting that there is a lot about football that is colored in varying shades of gray, rather than black or white, which is part of what makes football such an exciting game.
Saying that "bump" or press coverage is automatically or always illegal, even for a long time, doesn't mean anyone else accepts that contention, at least as intended for NFHS football.
-
So, here is that play that I've been advised not to throw a flag on but I still think is a foul. Receiver is on the LOS with DB at press coverage. Receiver immediately breaks to run an inside slant and he gets jammed by the DB. Is this a foul?
My interpretation, based on what's in red and exactly how your wrote it, is no. Why do you think it's a foul?
-
My interpretation, based on what's in red and exactly how your wrote it, is no. Why do you think it's a foul?
The reason that I have felt it is a foul is because the Receiver is clearly not attempting to block and is going to run a route.
-
The reason that I have felt it is a foul is because the Receiver is clearly not attempting to block and is going to run a route.
How do you know that? How do you know he's not headed to block the MLB? How do you know all of this that happens "immediately" is even going to be a pass play?
-
What might help is to consider that NFHS rules are designed for Interscholastic football games, which are at times somewhat different than rules governing older, more talented players in NCAA and/or NFL games. Ralph's description above summarizes the NFHS rule well, when a receiver is even with (and passing) a defender, or moving away from a defender, he ceases bein a blocking threat.
If the defender is able to keep the receiver between himself and the ball, prior to the ball actually being thrown, the receiver remains a "potential" blocker from which the defender can legally protect himself.
This is how I was taught to call it and it has worked for me for 20+ years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Press and bump are both attack techniques.
The contact may be a block or warding off the opponent who is attempting to
block by pushing or pulling him.
-
I have said it for a long time Bump or press coverage is illegal according to NFHS rules.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
Think of it in this context. In the NFL bump or press coverage is legal until the receiver gets to 5 yards or the pass is thrown. The NFHS (and NCAA) rules don't have that 5-yard rule. They are given a lot more leeway. This is definitely a black/white situation for most officials.
The situation where the receiver is running his route freely when contact is made is a little more gray, but a great way to make the gray smaller is to use the guidelines shared here and widely understood by most officials. The receiver is considered a potential blocker until he beyond the defender or running away from him. A variation of that would be a hook route where the receiver is still in front of the defender and he turns to face the passer.
Teeing off on the guy on a crossing route isn't illegal use of hands or holding, but it could be a personal foul.
-
However, if the receiver is not attempting to
block or has gone past or is moving away,
I see 3 things there, everyone sees 2, grey area or brainwashed??
I agree that all ineligible receivers may be potential blockers until the whistle blows but it appears the rules makers mean for eligible receivers to have a chance to get into their pass routes.
Redding says not a potential blocker once the Receiver and DB are at the same yardline, not beyond.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rztBwOYv6cMC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=no+longer+potential+blocker&source=bl&ots=dghjB4Tmnd&sig=_D7u7I04V-cZg_7FAOjOU3E1ORk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xChbVbGPEcPYoATh3YP4Cg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=no%20longer%20potential%20blocker&f=false
-
PI restrictions begin for A at the snap, correct. How can they be a potential blocker if a pass is thrown?
So if A blocks someone beyond the ENZ it is OPI but B can block A until the ball is in the air?
No B is supposed to stop blocking or grabbing or pushing A when A no longer is attempting to block them.
-
PI restrictions begin for A at the snap, correct. How can they be a potential blocker if a pass is thrown?
Big unknown with those 2 letters. You are making this too complicated. If my aunt was endowed differently she'd be my uncle. You can't assume anything until it happens. In the words of one supervisor who is fond of saying, "We are paid to know. We are not paid to think." Or assume.
-
if A is making contact it is a run play if he is trying to get open it is probably a pass play. I don't really think that is rocket science!
-
if A is making contact it is a run play if he is trying to get open it is probably a pass play. I don't really think that is rocket science!
Again, you are making assumptions. No, it isn't rocket science but you're trying to make it into that. Every play is different and must be treated as such, which is why we say (1) See, (2) Read, (3) then React.
-
PI restrictions begin for A at the snap, correct. How can they be a potential blocker if a pass is thrown?
So if A blocks someone beyond the ENZ it is OPI but B can block A until the ball is in the air?
No B is supposed to stop blocking or grabbing or pushing A when A no longer is attempting to block them.
For a brief moment, John, I thought you FINALLY got it, when you summarized with "So if A blocks someone beyond the ENZ it is OPI but B can block A until the ball is in the air?", because, as most understand, B doesn't KNOW it's actually a pass until someone throws the ball (forward, legally).
What you really don't seem able to (or perhaps want to) grasp is that (before someone throws the ball) B really can't be sure if the A player, between him and the ball (in a teammate's possession) is REALLY a receiver or a "POTENTIAL" blocker, so B has an absolute right to protect himself.
As you've been told (repeatedly) when the A player is past (or if you want to split hairs, "even with") the B player or moving away from him, the threat of A blocking is reduced, and the responsibility of B refraining from contacting, what he should recognize as an eligible receiver downfield, is dramatically increased.
All of which is factored into the judgment and decision made, exclusively, by the covering game official.
-
So in your world, this is legal contact even though the receiver is not attempting to block B and is at the same yard line as B
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb7B6ybdtn4
-
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcqMFDyCpNE
-
Holy Cow, none of these receivers were remotely knocked off their route. I call any of that my #&% is sitting at the house, no matter how shorthanded our association is.
Jeez bigjohn, I expect better from you. Keep Googling. You're off your A game.
-
So in your world, this is legal contact even though the receiver is not attempting to block B and is at the same yard line as B. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb7B6ybdtn4
John, sit down and listen; any play you can see on film, u-tube or video has already happened, is totally unique to any similar play that has, is or will happen and the decision regarding these plays is OVER, and nothing you, or I, think about these particular plays matters, or is going to change anything.
Me, and many others, have suggested how these plays are considered from an officiating perspective, and those suggestions are pretty much UNIVERSAL. Lucky enough to be living in this wonderful country, you have every right to ignore any and all advice, as only you choose, but what you are being told is the reality of what you will deal with. You don't have to agree with it, but you WILL live with it.
-
They are hands all over receivers that are already even or past them. How is that legal contact??
Might as well not have the rule.
-
Basketball has a rule governing hand checking. Football does not. :sTiR:
-
They are hands all over receivers that are already even or past them. How is that legal contact??
Might as well not have the rule.
John, I'm debating whether or not you're actually trying to understand the rule or if you're trying to troll us and be argumentative. I'll be gullible, I'll bite.
Here is an example that was sent to a few officials in my area. This is what the rule is trying to prevent. Watch the LB. The examples you gave are not even close.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA-T4I9Rwu4Z3ctaGtDUWZsakk/edit?usp=sharing
-
bossman72 in my opinion what you posted should be unnecessary roughness, Flagrant, PF and ejection. That falls under 9-2-3 but is excessive as in the new POE and what I am really getting at. I am not trying to troll I am saying it is not called as written and the case you showed is not getting the attention it should in far too many games.
Game officials need to be aware of situations that are likely to produce unnecessary or excessive
contact. Blindside blocks, peel-back blocks, and airborne receivers attempting to secure the ball oftentimes
provide windows of opportunity for these potentially dangerous contact situations to occur. Players leaving their
feet (launching) and initiating contact with opponents should be penalized immediately as unnecessary or
excessive contact.
IUH is hand checking and hindering the receiver and illegal. It is also one of those rules that is not called very often
-
OK, I am not in agreement with Big John on these either. My situation that I have seen is when a receiver is clearing attempting to run a route and the DB jams him successfully so that he cannot even advance down field. There is no pass thrown because the QB looks at him and he is not open. The hand checking that is being shown on the youtube videos is not a foul.
-
Is the contact at :03 & :45 considered a foul in NFHS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b77T2TaJNEE
-
Is the contact at :03 & :45 considered a foul in NFHS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b77T2TaJNEE
In this particular example, I would not have a foul in EITHER situation under NFHS rules. At :03, the receiver is charging directly at the defender, and is clearly a "potential" blocker. At :45, initially, the offensive player is EITHER trying to evade the defender or just as likely looking for a better blocking angle in response to the defender's ability to hold him off.
However at a point where the defender recognized the receiver was moving away from him (no longer a blocking threat) he ended his contact. Whether that happened EXACTLY where the receiver was even with, or moving past, the defender is a judgment call (FOR the covering official ALONE).
A major rule difference between NFL and NFHS is the area where such contact is allowed is limited to 5 yards under the NFL code, whereas under the NFHS code there is NO YARDAGE DESIGNATION. Our role is to detect CLEAR violations of specific rules, NOT search for, or seek, what might be construed as technical violations.
As has been suggested in other posts, " I am saying it is not called as written and the case you showed is not getting the attention it should in far too many games", the correct response to which may simply be, "Thankfully, and for good reason.".
-
bossman72 in my opinion what you posted should be unnecessary roughness, Flagrant, PF and ejection.
Really? No intent to injure, not above the shoulders. Foul, yes. Flagrant, no.
Any of my guys who wanted to EJ a player for that would be looking for a new crew on Monday.
-
The LB launched, or at least left his feet to hit a defenseless player in the back. Although it wasn't violent it was unnecessary and pure CRAP and when I was in college I know that would have ended in a fight in practice!
-
You could call this a couple of different things. If the ball was in the air (which it does not appear to be) I would call it pass interference and be done with it.
Before the pass, you could have an illegal block in the back (yes the defense can be penalized for that), or a "blind side block." personal foul. this does not cross the line into the flagrant category in my opinion (and that is a judgement call). You can argue these types of call all day, but at the end of the day it is up to the individual official who is making the call. Some things are still truly subjective and "in the eye of the beholder."
I would be inclined to say this is a block in the back.