Author Topic: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d  (Read 15833 times)

Offline sj_31

  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
"Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« 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?


Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2245
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2014, 12:23:18 AM »
Once the receiver is even with or past the defender, he is no longer a blocker.  See Case Book Play 9.2.3.A

Offline sj_31

  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2014, 12:27:14 AM »
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?

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2245
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2014, 06:31:23 AM »
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.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2697
  • FAN REACTION: +328/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2014, 07:10:38 AM »
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.

Offline Suudy

  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-1
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2014, 03:36:14 PM »
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.

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-34
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2015, 07:05:41 AM »
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)

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2015, 07:52:04 AM »
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.

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-34
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2015, 08:04:34 AM »
So you are saying POEs are worthless?? I agree!

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-501
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2015, 08:05:55 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 08:10:37 AM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-34
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2015, 08:27:38 AM »
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!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 10:43:27 AM by bigjohn »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-501
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2015, 11:33:18 AM »
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.

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-34
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2015, 11:38:25 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 01:01:03 PM by bigjohn »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-501
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2015, 12:50:07 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 12:56:00 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-34
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2015, 01:21:38 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 01:24:44 PM by bigjohn »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-501
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2015, 07:04:36 PM »
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.

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-34
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2015, 08:53:17 PM »
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!!!!
« Last Edit: May 17, 2015, 06:43:56 AM by bigjohn »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-501
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2015, 07:13:02 PM »
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.

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-34
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2015, 08:50:28 AM »
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

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2697
  • FAN REACTION: +328/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2015, 09:06:59 AM »
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:

Offline bkdow

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-3
  • Striving for the impossible level of perfection
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2015, 11:36:25 AM »
I'm with BigJohn.  Struggled with this since picking up officiating football.
"Don't let perfection get in the way of really good." John Lucivansky

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-501
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2015, 12:00:51 PM »
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.

Offline bkdow

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-3
  • Striving for the impossible level of perfection
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2015, 12:47:36 PM »
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?
"Don't let perfection get in the way of really good." John Lucivansky

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-34
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2015, 01:20:08 PM »
I have said it for a long time Bump or press coverage is illegal according to NFHS rules.


Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-501
Re: "Rerouting" and 9-2-3-d
« Reply #24 on: May 18, 2015, 02:46:57 PM »
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.