Blocking below the waist against a non ball-carrying runner

[ajv]

While I've got my new fully-edited rule book out, has there been any discussion of the reversion of the illegal blocking below the waist rule from:

2011-12: There shall be no blocking below the waist. Exceptions: 1. Against the runner.

to

2012-13: There shall be no blocking below the waist (other than against the ball carrier)

If a team pull off a magnificent fake and a defender hits the non-ball carrier below the waist should there be a foul?

Players B12 and B88 are waiting to receive a deep punt. B12 gains posession of the ball at the B-13 and B88 runs to take a (backward) handoff. Then both players run towards opposite sidelines. A55 knocks B88 below the waist at the B-19 bringing him to the ground. But it was a fake handoff! B12 has the ball and runs to the B-36 before being pushed out of bounds.

[Fixed typo in first sentence]

[TXMike]

I sure hope the intent of that as NOT to make it a foul if a player truly thought someone had the ball and tackled him low.  I think this whole ball carrier versus runner deal is getting out of control.  Heck look at the tripping rule.   It is legal to trip the runner.   If you can trip him then seems you should be able to hit him low.

[Cowman52]

Did I miss read or--a Bbw block by a defensive player must be within 5 yds of the Los???

[TXMike]

5 yds either side unless against the "ball carrier"

[NVFOA_Ump]

I sure hope the intent of that as NOT to make it a foul if a player truly thought someone had the ball and tackled him low. ......

I believe that it has to be the result of the change since the only difference per rule 2 definitions of these terms (ball carrier vs runner) is that the runner could be also be " ..... simulating possession of a live ball."  By changing the terms so that all of the 2012 exception language uses ball carrier instead of runner the exception for low (BBW) contact applies only against a ball carrier who by rule actually has the ball.  If read as written a good faith low "tackle" against a runner faking possession after some kind of handoff motion would now draw a flag where in 2011 it would have been OK.

Is there any other way to read the revised 2012 language?

[TXMike]

That is simply illogical.  As I said...the runner can be tripped.  And since the runner may not actualy have the ball there is no way he cannot also be hit low. 

[mishatx]

Is there any other way to read the revised 2012 language?

As an editing error?

[NVFOA_Ump]

That is simply illogical.  .....

I fully agree.

As an editing error?

I would agree that there is a high probability it is an "unintended" change.

[El Macman]

That is simply illogical.  As I said...the runner can be tripped.  And since the runner may not actualy have the ball there is no way he cannot also be hit low.

Especially considering RR went to some trouble to change "ball carrier" to "runner" in several places for the 2011-12 book, for that very reason.

[Diablo]

That is simply illogical.  As I said...the runner can be tripped.  And since the runner may not actualy have the ball there is no way he cannot also be hit low.

It is my understanding, the primary motivation for the recent constellation of changes associated with BBW is to limit injuries.  Could it be that tripping a player is deemed to be less injurious than BBW?  And the rules makers want the defense "to see the ball" before committing to a more injury-causing BBW.

[TXMike]

Me thinks you are giving them way too much credit