RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: VA Official on September 28, 2017, 11:17:51 AM
-
There was some discussion last week in my crew about applying the block/charge principle in basketball to PI in high school football. There was a defender that gained what would've been legal guarding position, for us basketball folks, in front of a receiver approximately 20 yards downfield from the LOS while the ball was in the air. The defender set his position about 3 steps in front of the receiver who was running a corner route. The defender faced the receiver standing still, had no idea where the ball was, and took a "charge" as both fell to the ground. The ball hit the turf beyond them.
Case Book play 7.5.10 Situation D may come into play here, but there's some interpretation involved as well. Thoughts?
-
DPI all the way in my book. The football rules do not mention a legal guarding position on the field of play. In fact, they seem to suggest the opposite. Any position is ok unless a defender interferes with the opponents right to the football. If this was a kick, I've got KCI because the defender blocked Rs path to the ball. I see this the same way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
First, the contact in this scenario was caused by A against a stationary B player; so no DPI (IMO).
This is supported by 7.5.10D as well as Reddings (pg 43) under PI ("players have equal territorial rights - a right to the ball"); and OPI ("Since both players (A & B, my edit) have equal rights, either player is entitled to whatever spot on the field they can get to first without contact".
The "block/charge" is an interesting analogy as it relates to a defender, prior to contact, who establishes a legal guarding position (two feet on the floor, facing his opponent if my memory serves me correctly). Both codes also allow, IMO, for the defender to move (as opposed to remain stationary) to maintain his legal guarding position.
The danger in the analogy, however, comes in that the block/charge is usually associated with a defender of the player with the ball and there is no time or distance factor required for establishment of a legal guarding position. In the FB scenario, the receiver does not, yet, possess the ball and, while the defender is allowed to move, we must be cognizant of his "cutting off", with contact, of the receiver (interfering with his opportunity to move toward, catch, or bat a legal forward pass.
-
The danger in the analogy, however, comes in that the block/charge is usually associated with a defender of the player with the ball and there is no time or distance factor required for establishment of a legal guarding position. In the FB scenario, the receiver does not, yet, possess the ball and, while the defender is allowed to move, we must be cognizant of his "cutting off", with contact, of the receiver (interfering with his opportunity to move toward, catch, or bat a legal forward pass.
Correct. It's not a foolproof analogy, but they do share general characteristics that allow you to picture a scenario and rule. I'm not saying it's a correct analogy either though. Just seeking input from the forum.
-
But VA, forgetting the analogy, I would still argue that an offensive receiver running into a stationary defender shouldn't be DPI... ^no tiphat: pi1eOn
-
Flip this on its head.
If you have a receiver standing still--say after finishing the turn on a button hook route--the ball is in the air, and he is run into by a defender, we would throw the flag for DPI.
In the original play in question, why wouldn't we have OPI? Because the receiver is going for the ball? Because the defender doesn't know where the ball is? The result of the play is the defender being hindered from getting to the ball too by virtue of being run over.
I would have to see it live, but I definitely don't think its DPI, and I may lean toward OPI depending on the receiver's body and head position.
-
If the defender happened to be going after the ball you might have a case, but as it stands there is virtually no support for OPI. If that were the case then all a defender would have to do would be get in front of a receiver and stop once the ball was in the air.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I believe a key question is this: Is the defender in a position to make a play on the ball? (i.e. roughly where the ball is going to come down)
It doesn't sound like he is here. If he is not, then I have DPI for cutting off the receiver's route.
If he *is* in position to make a play on the ball (even if he's unaware of it), then I have either nothing or maybe OPI if he's actively trying to go after the ball.
-
I believe a key question is this: Is the defender in a position to make a play on the ball? (i.e. roughly where the ball is going to come down)
It doesn't sound like he is here. If he is not, then I have DPI for cutting off the receiver's route.
If he *is* in position to make a play on the ball (even if he's unaware of it), then I have either nothing or maybe OPI if he's actively trying to go after the ball.
Can a defender who never moves after the snap be guilty of DPI if the receiver runs into him? (I don't know the answer to this, I don't referee football, I just like reading about it.) If not, (and I would suspect not), how long then must a defender be stationary before the onus for avoiding contact shifts from the defender to the receiver?
-
I believe a key question is this: Is the defender in a position to make a play on the ball? (i.e. roughly where the ball is going to come down)
He was 10 yards from where the ball landed, with no intention whatsoever of making a play on it. Eyes were focused on setting his "screen" to draw a "charge."
Can a defender who never moves after the snap be guilty of DPI if the receiver runs into him? (I don't know the answer to this, I don't referee football, I just like reading about it.) If not, (and I would suspect not), how long then must a defender be stationary before the onus for avoiding contact shifts from the defender to the receiver?
At the snap we wouldn't have DPI because PI restrictions for the defense don't begin until the pass is released. For your second part, that is the essence of the original issue. Can a stationary defender be called for PI if he cuts off the receiver's route to the ball?
-
Where in the verbiage covering pass interference does it say the defender "needs to know where the ball is" or "must be in position to make a play on it"? As I documented earlier, the defender has the right to his spot on the field without contact. If he subsequently makes a move to "interfere with the opportunity", you have a case for DPI; but if he's just standing there I've got nothing. The defender has done no act to interfere and the receiver can't interfere with an opponent who has no idea where the ball is.
-
He was 10 yards from where the ball landed, with no intention whatsoever of making a play on it. Eyes were focused on setting his "screen" to draw a "charge."
This leads me to believe it's DPI. according to this description, B has no intention of making a play on the ball. His singular intent is to interfere with A's opportunity to move toward the ball. I withdraw my previous statement concerning position. B does have a right to his position on the field and can maintain it. As long as he doesn't intentionally interfere with A's opportunity to move toward the pass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
But VA, forgetting the analogy, I would still argue that an offensive receiver running into a stationary defender shouldn't be DPI... ^no tiphat: pi1eOn
I agree. No DPI especially given the statement in the OP that the defender was standing still 20 yards in from of the receiver. In reality, you have OPI. I actually saw a similar play on film 2weeks ago.
-
If the defender happened to be going after the ball you might have a case, but as it stands there is virtually no support for OPI. If that were the case then all a defender would have to do would be get in front of a receiver and stop once the ball was in the air.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nowhere is the offensive player given the right to run over a stationary defender. He’s effectively blocking downfield with the ball in the air. Classic OPI.
-
I agree. No DPI especially given the statement in the OP that the defender was standing still 20 yards in from of the receiver. In reality, you have OPI. I actually saw a similar play on film 2weeks ago.
I must have read the OP wrong. I thought it said the play happened 20yds downfield but the defender was only 3 yds in front of the receiver when he turned and tried to "draw a charge."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
nowhere is the offensive player given the right to run over a stationary defender. He’s effectively blocking downfield with the ball in the air. Classic OPI.
There's nothing classic about intentionally stopping in the path of a receiver to try and draw contact from him, especially if/when the receiver is making a bonafide effort to catch the football. Nobody said anything about the receiver blocking anybody. Contact caused by the action of the defense is not blocking. IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I must have read the OP wrong. I thought it said the play happened 20yds downfield but the defender was only 3 yds in front of the receiver when he turned and tried to "draw a charge."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s what happened. Poorly worded on my part. 20 yards downfield is where it happened (inconsequential), he set up 3 yards in front of the receiver.
-
Fed rule 7-5/10 states that "It is forward pass interference if any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an eligible opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch, or bat a pass." IMHO, if the defender is not making a play on the ball, but just standing there, impeding the receiver's path to the ball, this is DPI. It is similar to an illegal pick play. Indeed, establishing position is acceptable in basketball, but I do not think this is allowable in football. The defender needs ^flag. Now if he was running and just slowed down to impede the receiver, what would you have?
-
Fed rule 7-5/10 states that "It is forward pass interference if any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an eligible opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch, or bat a pass." IMHO, if the defender is not making a play on the ball, but just standing there, impeding the receiver's path to the ball, this is DPI. It is similar to an illegal pick play. Indeed, establishing position is acceptable in basketball, but I do not think this is allowable in football. The defender needs ^flag. Now if he was running and just slowed down to impede the receiver, what would you have?
In my opinion, the casebook says there's no foul by B in that situation but if A makes contact, it's OPI.
7.5.10 SITUATION D:
B3 gets in the path of a receiver, A4, without making contact. B3's presence results in either:
(a) A4 slowing down to avoid contact or,
(b) A4 initiating contact in an effort to reach the ball.
RULING: No foul in (a), but in (b) a foul by A4 for offensive pass interference. (7-5-10a)
-
In my opinion, the casebook says there's no foul by B in that situation but if A makes contact, it's OPI.
:thumbup :thumbup
-
In my opinion, the casebook says there's no foul by B in that situation but if A makes contact, it's OPI.
I agree. The subject of this topic was based on input from fellow officials with the "block/charge principle" somehow making this DPI (if anything wouldn't block/charge make this OPI?). I had the flag and insisted on OPI based on recalling this case play. WH ended up waving off the flag against my urging because we could not come to an agreement as a crew. hEaDbAnG pi1eOn
-
I agree. The subject of this topic was based on input from fellow officials with the "block/charge principle" somehow making this DPI (if anything wouldn't block/charge make this OPI?). I had the flag and insisted on OPI based on recalling this case play. WH ended up waving off the flag against my urging because we could not come to an agreement as a crew. hEaDbAnG pi1eOn
Good pregame discussion for next Friday night. Not to create a firestorm but rather to be better as a crew.
-
Good pregame discussion for next Friday night. Not to create a firestorm but rather to be better as a crew.
Agreed. This case book play will surely be discussed at length so this doesn't happen... although it may be another 10 years before I ever see it again.
-
I agree. The subject of this topic was based on input from fellow officials with the "block/charge principle" somehow making this DPI (if anything wouldn't block/charge make this OPI?). I had the flag and insisted on OPI based on recalling this case play. WH ended up waving off the flag against my urging because we could not come to an agreement as a crew. hEaDbAnG pi1eOn
I think gm's reply is based on this question: "Now if he was running and just slowed down to impede the receiver, what would you have?" Which is an entirely different situation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Analysis of these things is easier when it is seen rather than described.
That said, as described, OPI all day, any day, and your white hat was out of line.
-
Analysis of these things is easier when it is seen rather than described.
Basketball and Football are played with two VERY differently shaped balls, which is part of the reason they have their own rule, each developed and fine tuned over many, MANY years and games. The rules (principles. behaviors, etc.) are simply DIFFERENT, and sometimes what might seem really logical for the goose, makes no sense for the gander.
-
Basketball and Football are played with two VERY differently shaped balls, which is part of the reason they have their own rule, each developed and fine tuned over many, MANY years and games. The rules (principles. behaviors, etc.) are simply DIFFERENT, and sometimes what might seem really logical for the goose, makes no sense for the gander.
+1
I will add I agree with whoever said the WH was out of line. If you throw an OPI and are willing to stand by it, I'm with you. We can agree or disagree after the game, but it's your flag. I came with you and I'm leaving with you.
(I still think it's DPI)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
(I still think it's DPI)
Have you read the case book play?
-
Have you read the case book play?
Yes and I think it's not remotely similar to this play.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We’ll agree to disagree.
-
Interesting play here and a more interesting discussion but I've got DPI with this specific set of circumstances. The way I read the original play the defender who is 20 yards +/- down field intentionally positions himself in the path of the receiver who is tracking the oncoming pass and then simply stops making no real attempt to play the ball or the receiver, just intentionally get in the way as the ball sails overhead. The mere fact that he is stopped does not IMHO mean that A "created" the contact. I would agree that you need to see the actual play to better judge who "caused" what here but I'll flag this one for DPI.
For example, if he had just stopped but was actually covering a different A receiver as he gets run over, or if the A receiver extends his arms and "blocks" him out of the way I might have a OPI call but not on this play. And I really don't think that the case play helps us either way here.