RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: SkowheganCoach on September 08, 2015, 11:24:25 AM
-
I realize that there can be no pass interference if the ball isn't thrown, but can someone tell me if this following scenario is a penalty, and if so, what it would be: A receiver is crossing the field with his eyes on the QB. As he approaches a defensive player B, player B steps into receiver A's path and throws his shoulder into receiver A's chest flattening receiver A. The Qb was set to throw the ball, but pulled it down when his intended target was knocked to the ground and he was subsequently sacked.
Thanks,
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Going solely on your description of the play, I would have a personal foul against B. This seems to fit in the category of placing an unnecessary hit on a defenseless player. ^flag
-
I tried to attach a screenshot of the video, but I realize it is hard to see.
-
As you said, Coach, we can't pass interference if no pass is thrown. Also sounds like B never held the receiver, so holding is out as well. So depending on the severity of "throws his shoulder into A's chest", we either have a personal foul or nothing.
-
I think that question would answer itself if I can attach the video. Thanks for the information.
https://youtu.be/Eqdf9KKHXzo
-
As you said, Coach, we can't pass interference if no pass is thrown. Also sounds like B never held the receiver, so holding is out as well. So depending on the severity of "throws his shoulder into A's chest", we either have a personal foul or nothing.
You don't have to "hold" the receiver for it to be a foul. Any contact against an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker is "Illegal use of hands or arms", even if you use a shoulder. 9-2-3d.
-
I think that question would answer itself if I can attach the video. Thanks for the information.
https://youtu.be/Eqdf9KKHXzo
That is a huge miss by the officiating crew. Hard to tell from the video but by the way the player was getting up I suspect he got a little extra in the it which may be entering Personal Foul territory. At a minimum like Atlanta Blue said Illegal Use of Hands and Arms.
-
Thanks for the thoughts guys. In the same game we had a non called 2-3-7 and our opponent consistently lined up in a covered twins formation and both receivers would go downfield on passes.
-
I think that question would answer itself if I can attach the video. Thanks for the information.
https://youtu.be/Eqdf9KKHXzo
Hate to be critical of the crew I didn't watch, but yes, that's a foul.
-
That falls into the unnecessary roughness category for me. AB is right though, if it hadn't been bad enough for a personal foul I would have illegal use of hands.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Though you don't identify yourself as the head coach, I'm going to presume you are. If you are from Showhegan, Maine, it is unfortunate that you chose to ask your question in a public forum rather than consult with your state rules interpreter. He happens to be one of the most knowledgable high school rules authorities in the country and I'm quite certain could have and would have answered any questions you had as to this play.
-
You don't have to "hold" the receiver for it to be a foul. Any contact against an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker is "Illegal use of hands or arms", even if you use a shoulder. 9-2-3d.
Thanks for the clarification/correction AB. That's definitely true.
-
Not the best video, but it does appear to me that the defensive player "braced" himself and put his shoulder into the receiver which would be a an illegal use of the hands violation of 9-2-3d as mentioned.
-
Not the best video, but it does appear to me that the defensive player "braced" himself and put his shoulder into the receiver which would be a an illegal use of the hands violation of 9-2-3d as mentioned.
Perhaps you all have better video equipment, but after several viewings I couldn't discern if the potential receiver was a blocker attacking the defensive player focusing on a sweep who simply chose to defend himself. Of course the view from deep behind the offensive formation wasn't the greatest, and likely not nearly as good as the far side wing officials who would have had a direct, close view of both the contact and the lead up to it.
It's good to remember, only the offense knows (for sure) if the intended play involves a pass, or is a planned sweep where an off side receiver targets defensive backs. It did seem like that off side receiver was moving DIRECTLY AT the defensive player who appeared mostly stationary up to the final "flinch" before contact.
Until the defense KNOWS a pass has been thrown, offensive players are either runners, or blockers who are a threat, until they run past, or away, from a defender.
-
Though you don't identify yourself as the head coach, I'm going to presume you are. If you are from Showhegan, Maine, it is unfortunate that you chose to ask your question in a public forum rather than consult with your state rules interpreter. He happens to be one of the most knowledgable high school rules authorities in the country and I'm quite certain could have and would have answered any questions you had as to this play.
I forwarded the video to the officials. And I do expect a reply. My decision to pose the question on here is for the same reason that any coach asks a question on here I expect, for timely clarity. I didn't name the officials that were at this game and I wouldn't do that. I merely was interested in others' opinions. Isn't that what this forum is for?
-
Perhaps you all have better video equipment, but after several viewings I couldn't discern if the potential receiver was a blocker attacking the defensive player focusing on a sweep who simply chose to defend himself. Of course the view from deep behind the offensive formation wasn't the greatest, and likely not nearly as good as the far side wing officials who would have had a direct, close view of both the contact and the lead up to it.
It's good to remember, only the offense knows (for sure) if the intended play involves a pass, or is a planned sweep where an off side receiver targets defensive backs. It did seem like that off side receiver was moving DIRECTLY AT the defensive player who appeared mostly stationary up to the final "flinch" before contact.
Until the defense KNOWS a pass has been thrown, offensive players are either runners, or blockers who are a threat, until they run past, or away, from a defender.
Have to agree with Al that there is definite potential for receiver to be considered potential blocker. Admittedly watching video on phone it's hard for me to be sure. Does look like defender moves slightly forward to hit receiver. But is he expected to stand there and be the one taking hit or to allow blocker to tie him up. Like Al said only the offense knows for sure whether he is strictly a receiver or if he might be a blocker and even that status could rapidly change during the play.
-
I forwarded the video to the officials. And I do expect a reply. My decision to pose the question on here is for the same reason that any coach asks a question on here I expect, for timely clarity. I didn't name the officials that were at this game and I wouldn't do that. I merely was interested in others' opinions. Isn't that what this forum is for?
You are welcome to ask any rules questions here. We're always glad to answer and explain rules. What we don't want to do is review film and comment on whether other crews missed calls or not. That wouldn't be fair for us to sit and second guess calls/non calls.
The answer to your original question would be that it would be a foul for illegal use of the hands per rule 9-2-3. I didn't look at the picture or the video so I can't comment on this particular play.
-
The receiver is still a potential blocker at this point because the ball has not been thrown and he is not beyond the defender. In this situation I don't consider the fact he's looking back at the QB as absolving him from being a potential blocker. You can't commit a personal foul or hold him, but you can contact him.
-
With the luxury of having replay capability and this angle, I don't see a foul in this clip; however, I believe officials are justified to have a no-call OR an illegal use of hands foul in this case. The defender appears to be sticking to his assignment (he is watching the QB the entire time, moving laterally/forward/backward throughout the play). It appears that the defender flinches just before contact, but it does not seem as if he is delivering a blow to the receiver. Based on the rule, and what I saw here, I could see this being (justifiably) a no-call or a penalty. Sometimes there are no easy calls.
-
Magician that is not what the casebook says, It says he is moving away.
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)
-
Magician that is not what the casebook says, It says he is moving away.
BLOCKING – USE OF HANDS
9.2.3 SITUATION A: In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a
potential blocker on B1. (2-3-5a; 7-5-7)
Sorry John, it only matters what "is clear" in the judgment of the covering official. Everything else is just an opinion, which EVERYONE has, and is often likely to be somewhat different than other opinions.
-
beyond the defender is not the definition of no longer a potential blocker.
It is only explained in this one casebook situation.
In this situation, it is clear that A1 is no longer a
potential blocker on B1