Author Topic: defenseless receiver  (Read 631 times)

Offline the clown

  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-13
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
defenseless receiver
« on: August 19, 2017, 12:33:20 PM »
We are currently all screwed up on how to protect a "defenseless receiver" on a curl route - comeback - hook - basically when the defender is making contact from behind.  The contact needs to be "Legal"  I'm not talking about  him getting blown up (speared or targeted)  We have been debating that any "Legal" contact that is hard is illegal.  2-32-16  The case book is lacking in examples.  please advise..

Offline Jackhammer

  • *
  • Posts: 236
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-5
Re: defenseless receiver
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2017, 10:28:59 AM »
The direction from 2015 regarding unnecessary and excessive contact (9-4-3g) still applies.

Defenders should be making a bona fide attempt on the ball, or should be making a wrapping tackle.  Hits that are simply attempts at punishing the defenseless player are not permitted.
"The only whistle that kills a play is an inadvertent one"

"The only thing black and white in officiating is the uniform"

Offline WCFB

  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: defenseless receiver
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2017, 08:01:26 PM »
We have been discussing a similar situation, and I think the kind of contact you are referring to is displayed in the following clip. When is a HDR called even though the technique in question is legal?

https://youtu.be/xp23E1r8o_4

Offline The Roamin' Umpire

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-16
Re: defenseless receiver
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2017, 07:56:00 AM »
This is difficult because it has been left as purely a judgment call. In the clip by WCFB, the only potential foul is UNR. (You could maybe make a case for spearing, but I'm pretty sure the defender's helmet is to the side of the receiver. For the sake of argument, let's say the hit is NOT with the helmet.)

So, this leaves you with: Is it unnecessary or excessive? Does the defender have any other way to make a play? Is there any "extra" action that is mostly about making a hit instead of making a play?

For me, from the angle shown, I would say this one is close - I'm not actually sure what I would do with it in a game situation. Heck, I'm not even 100% sure what I *want* me to do with it in a game situation... but ultimately, I think this should be a flag for the way the receiver is slammed into the ground. (I can hear the coach now: "He's making a tackle - isn't that what we're supposed to be doing?!") The initial hit appears to me to be a hard but legal attempt to prevent the reception; others will certainly disagree with me. (Opposite coach, screaming: "THAT'S A DEFENSELESS PLAYER!")

Ultimately, though, it's a judgment call.

Offline Ironhead17

  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-2
Re: defenseless receiver
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2017, 01:32:20 PM »
That's a tackle. This is football. Play on.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3796
  • FAN REACTION: +309/-233
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: defenseless receiver
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2017, 01:59:42 PM »
That's a tackle. This is football. Play on.
Agree. From this angle I have nothing but a good tackle. It will take s lot more than this to convince me we have a foul.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Jackhammer

  • *
  • Posts: 236
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-5
Re: defenseless receiver
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2017, 03:55:23 PM »
In the video clip provide by WCB it appears as if the defender is completely wrapping up.  I believe this fits within the definition of what is allowable.  It appears to be completely proper technique.
"The only whistle that kills a play is an inadvertent one"

"The only thing black and white in officiating is the uniform"

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2175
  • FAN REACTION: +68/-23
Re: defenseless receiver
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2017, 06:10:54 AM »
That's a tackle. This is football. Play on.

+1

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2190
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: defenseless receiver
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2017, 01:20:50 PM »
Assuming we judge that this is not IHC (I don't think it is):

He didn't go high on the receiver; he hit the receiver in the "strike zone" and wrapped him up; and this is to my mind a "football play".  To me, this is exactly the hit that Fed is trying to get kids to do rather than go for the Sportscenter highlight "blowup" play.  No flag.


Offline BIG UMP

  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: defenseless receiver
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2017, 01:38:28 PM »
In the video I can only see a form tackle with the defender wrapping up just like we want.  No foul there.
Big Ump
aka Shawn

"EVERY JOB IS A SELF-PORTRAIT OF THE PERSON WHO DID IT.  AUTOGRAPH YOUR WORK WITH EXCELLENCE."~unknown