Expanded Neutral Zone

[dch]

Part of off-season discussions allows us to “pick nits” with our understanding of the rules without the threat of violating “accepted practice” during games. 
So, I’d like to discuss and try to have a detailed understanding of the neutral zone and expanded neutral zone.

When I began officiating high school football there was no definition of the expanded neutral zone. 
Today, Rule 2 tells us that it may be expanded up to 2 yards (in the field of play) on any scrimmage down.  The current Case Book states that the neutral zone is expanded on all scrimmage kicks.

I would like to have the following situations discussed:
1)   Scrimmage kick is touched beyond the line of scrimmage, but in the expanded neutral zone, by R.
2)   Scrimmage kick hits R’s shoulder while R is in the expanded neutral zone.
3)   Scrimmage kick is touched by K57 while he is in the expanded neutral zone (K57 did not block or make contact with anyone on the play and he is 2 steps beyond his initial position on the line).  Is this 1st touching?
4)   Forward pass play – A63 blocks B lineman and drives him back.  A63 is 1½ yards  beyond the line of scrimmage when the forward pass is released.  The ball hits A63 in the helmet and is incomplete.  Any problem here?
5)   Forward pass play but this time A63 does not block anyone.  He takes 2 steps forward before the pass is released and then the ball hits him in the helmet.  Anything illegal?
6)   3rd and goal on the B ½ yard line.  A75 drives B lineman back 1 step into the end zone before the pass is released.  Pass is caught in the end zone by the A tight end.  Any issues or concerns?

Please be nitpicky to all of the above.  http://www.refstripes.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tiphat.gif

[Derek Teigen]

1)   Scrimmage kick is touched beyond the line of scrimmage, but in the expanded neutral zone, by R.
touching is ignored.  K could recover and advance.  Rule 6-2 art. 6.
2)   Scrimmage kick hits R’s shoulder while R is in the expanded neutral zone.
same correct?  touching is ignored and K could recover and advance.
3)   Scrimmage kick is touched by K57 while he is in the expanded neutral zone (K57 did not block or make contact with anyone on the play and he is 2 steps beyond his initial position on the line).  Is this 1st touching?
again....touching is ignored.  I am starting to see a theme here.
4)   Forward pass play – A63 blocks B lineman and drives him back.  A63 is 1½ yards  beyond the line of scrimmage when the forward pass is released.  The ball hits A63 in the helmet and is incomplete.  Any problem here?
no A63 is still in the expanded neutral zone
5)   Forward pass play but this time A63 does not block anyone.  He takes 2 steps forward before the pass is released and then the ball hits him in the helmet.  Anything illegal?
no he is still in the expanded neutral zone
6)   3rd and goal on the B ½ yard line.  A75 drives B lineman back 1 step into the end zone before the pass is released.  Pass is caught in the end zone by the A tight end.  Any issues or concerns?
I think the neutral zone is not expanded into the endzone so we might have ineligible downfield.

[Ralph Damren]

1)   Scrimmage kick is touched beyond the line of scrimmage, but in the expanded neutral zone, by R.
touching is ignored.  K could recover and advance.  Rule 6-2 art. 6.
2)   Scrimmage kick hits R’s shoulder while R is in the expanded neutral zone.
same correct?  touching is ignored and K could recover and advance.
3)   Scrimmage kick is touched by K57 while he is in the expanded neutral zone (K57 did not block or make contact with anyone on the play and he is 2 steps beyond his initial position on the line).  Is this 1st touching?
again....touching is ignored.  I am starting to see a theme here.
4)   Forward pass play – A63 blocks B lineman and drives him back.  A63 is 1½ yards  beyond the line of scrimmage when the forward pass is released.  The ball hits A63 in the helmet and is incomplete.  Any problem here?
no A63 is still in the expanded neutral zone
5)   Forward pass play but this time A63 does not block anyone.  He takes 2 steps forward before the pass is released and then the ball hits him in the helmet.  Anything illegal?
no he is still in the expanded neutral zone
6)   3rd and goal on the B ½ yard line.  A75 drives B lineman back 1 step into the end zone before the pass is released.  Pass is caught in the end zone by the A tight end.  Any issues or concerns?
I think the neutral zone is not expanded into the endzone so we might have ineligible downfield.

                       

[bama_stripes]

6)   3rd and goal on the B ½ yard line.  A75 drives B lineman back 1 step into the end zone before the pass is released.  Pass is caught in the end zone by the A tight end.  Any issues or concerns?
I think the neutral zone is not expanded into the endzone so we might have ineligible downfield.

Don’t pick this nit.  There’s no possibility the defense will believe there’s a need to cover #75 who’s engaged with an opponent.

[CalhounLJ]

Don’t pick this nit.  There’s no possibility the defense will believe there’s a need to cover #75 who’s engaged with an opponent.

Retweet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dch]

Regarding scrimmage kicks it is clear (in the Case Book) that the neutral zone expands and touching or being touched by the ball in that area is not a consideration regarding first touching or who gets final possession of the ball.  It is just like being behind the line of scrimmage.

Regarding forward pass plays: 
The expanded neutral zone does not extend into the end zone.  Therefore, in 6) above, I think  A75 is technically an ineligible downfield.

In 5) above – the neutral zone does not expand for A63 as he did not contact a B lineman and drive him back.  Therefore, this is technically an ineligible downfield. 
I found this ruling in the Case Book the first year the Expanded Neutral Zone was defined.  I have not found any changes to this in more recent publications.  The old Case Play specifically states that it is illegal for an ineligible to advance beyond is line of scrimmage unless he made initial contact with an opponent on the line and maintained the contact while driving him back.  I assume that is why Rule 2 states that the neutral zone "MAY" be expanded (as opposed to "IS" expanded).  In effect the neutral zone expands for initial contact with a lineman but not for just stepping across the line of scrimmage.

I am certainly not advocating that we look for this technicality in our games.  Just trying to know and understand what the book says.

[CalhounLJ]

Regarding scrimmage kicks it is clear (in the Case Book) that the neutral zone expands and touching or being touched by the ball in that area is not a consideration regarding first touching or who gets final possession of the ball.  It is just like being behind the line of scrimmage.

Regarding forward pass plays: 
The expanded neutral zone does not extend into the end zone.  Therefore, in 6) above, I think  A75 is technically an ineligible downfield.

In 5) above – the neutral zone does not expand for A63 as he did not contact a B lineman and drive him back.  Therefore, this is technically an ineligible downfield. 
I found this ruling in the Case Book the first year the Expanded Neutral Zone was defined.  I have not found any changes to this in more recent publications.  The old Case Play specifically states that it is illegal for an ineligible to advance beyond is line of scrimmage unless he made initial contact with an opponent on the line and maintained the contact while driving him back.  I assume that is why Rule 2 states that the neutral zone "MAY" be expanded (as opposed to "IS" expanded).  In effect the neutral zone expands for initial contact with a lineman but not for just stepping across the line of scrimmage.

I am certainly not advocating that we look for this technicality in our games.  Just trying to know and understand what the book says.

If that’s true, then how do we deal with ole Bubba the OLM when he’s standing in the expanded nz not blocking anybody, and a scrimmage kick hits him in the helmet? What creates the expanded nz in that situation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

If that’s true, then how do we deal with ole Bubba the OLM when he’s standing in the expanded nz not blocking anybody, and a scrimmage kick hits him in the helmet? What creates the expanded nz in that situation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Another thought, what if one guy is blocking and the other isn’t, yet they both are in the expanded neutral zone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BetweenTheLines]

I was always instructed that if there is a short high scrimmage kick the EZ disappears. If R touches this kick while across the line of scrimmage its anyones ball. 6-2-6 is for a low (line drive) kick.

[dch]

In regards to the two situations Calhoun posed above:
a) scrimmage kick -- an offensive lineman is standing in the expanded neutral zone (having not blocked anyone) and the kicked ball hits him.  Since the casebook specifically states that the neutral zone is automatically expanded on scrimmage kicks then this touching is ignored -- not first touching (just like if it was behind the line..
b) pass play --- If two offensive lineman are in the expanded neutral zone and one is blocking and the other didn't.  The one that did not block a defensive lineman and drive him back a step or two is illegally down field.  In effect the neutral zone expands for the one that blocks but doesn't expand for the one that doesn't block.

This is not my preferred scenario but I believe it is what the letter of the law says.

[CalhounLJ]

In regards to the two situations Calhoun posed above:
a) scrimmage kick -- an offensive lineman is standing in the expanded neutral zone (having not blocked anyone) and the kicked ball hits him.  Since the casebook specifically states that the neutral zone is automatically expanded on scrimmage kicks then this touching is ignored -- not first touching (just like if it was behind the line..
b) pass play --- If two offensive lineman are in the expanded neutral zone and one is blocking and the other didn't.  The one that did not block a defensive lineman and drive him back a step or two is illegally down field.  In effect the neutral zone expands for the one that blocks but doesn't expand for the one that doesn't block.

This is not my preferred scenario but I believe it is what the letter of the law says.

I’m going to disagree with (b) because of this case play comment:

7.5.12 SITUATION A:

At the snap, interior lineman A1 moves about 3 yards downfield and finding no one to block, retreats behind the neutral zone and blocks for A2 who eventually throws a forward pass which crosses the neutral zone.

RULING: A1 is an ineligible who is illegally downfield. The prohibition against ineligibles downfield for A starts at the snap, and the fact A1 was no longer downfield when the pass was thrown has no bearing on the ruling.

COMMENT: Ineligible A players may advance into the expanded neutral zone during a down in which a legal forward pass is thrown, but may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Also, let me comment on the applicable rule.

ART. 12 ... Ineligible A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone is in flight. If B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this restriction is terminated

At no time in any of the rules concerning the expanded neutral zone do they mention that A must contact a defensive player and drive him back. I realize the case play in rule 2 seems to imply that, but it’s never explicitly mentioned as a requirement to expand the neutral zone in the rules.

Also, the case play I posted seems to suggest that if A had only ventured 2 yards downfield without blocking anybody he would have been ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

Wasn't there an editorial change on this either for 2020 or 2019?  I did a cursory look for it the other day when this came up but couldn't find it right away.  I know this got discussed somewhere.

[CalhounLJ]

Wasn't there an editorial change on this either for 2020 or 2019?  I did a cursory look for it the other day when this came up but couldn't find it right away.  I know this got discussed somewhere.

Point of emphasis in this years rulebook:

Some clarification was recently provided in identifying when an ineligible Team A player is illegally downfield on a pass play. By rule, ineligible Team A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone is in flight. The neutral zone expands 2 yards behind the defensive line of scrimmage following the snap. The position of the ineligible Team A player at the moment of the legal pass is the only factor in determining if the player is illegally downfield. When identifying Team A players who are illegally downfield, it is important to make sure that the Team A player is clearly beyond the expanded neutral zone (2 yards) at the moment that the pass is in flight. Players can travel multiple yards in a quick period of time. These players can be legally within the expanded neutral zone when the pass is thrown but beyond as the pass moves downfield. If B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this restriction is terminated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Point of emphasis in this years rulebook:

Some clarification was recently provided in identifying when an ineligible Team A player is illegally downfield on a pass play. By rule, ineligible Team A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone is in flight. The neutral zone expands 2 yards behind the defensive line of scrimmage following the snap. The position of the ineligible Team A player at the moment of the legal pass is the only factor in determining if the player is illegally downfield. When identifying Team A players who are illegally downfield, it is important to make sure that the Team A player is clearly beyond the expanded neutral zone (2 yards) at the moment that the pass is in flight. Players can travel multiple yards in a quick period of time. These players can be legally within the expanded neutral zone when the pass is thrown but beyond as the pass moves downfield. If B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this restriction is terminated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This seems to support the idea that the neutral zone automatically expands to two yards at the snap. Plus, the player’s position is the ONLY factor we use to determine. This seems to suggest whether he was engaged in blocking is not a factor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SDR]

In the 2020 Points of Emphasis, under the section dealing with Ineligibles Downfield, there is the following language: 

The position of the ineligible Team A player at the moment of the legal pass is the only factor in determining if the player is illegally downfield. When identifying Team A players who are illegally downfield, it is important to make sure that the Team A player is clearly beyond the expanded neutral zone (2 yards) at the moment that the pass is in flight.

However, when you look in the case book at 7.5.12 SITUATION A, it doesn’t appear that there is any change in how the rule is interpreted.

SITUATION A:  At the snap, interior lineman A1 moves about 3 yards downfield and finding no one to block, retreats behind the neutral zone and blocks for A2 who eventually throws a forward pass which crosses the neutral zone.  RULING:  A1 is an ineligible who is illegally downfield.  The prohibition against ineligibles downfield for Team A starts at the snap, and the fact that A1 was no longer downfield when the pass was thrown has no bearing on the ruling.  COMMENT:  Ineligible Team A players may advance into the expended neutral zone during a down in which a legal forward pass is thrown, but may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone. 


How should the language of the POE be interpreted.  There was not a change in the rule or the case book interpretation from the NFHS.  It doesn't seem like both the statement in the POE and the case book interpretation can be correct. 

[dch]

Thank you SDR. 
That is why I reviewed Case Plays and other material regarding the expanded neutral zone.  I didn't find anything that specifically changed the ruling for forward pass plays from the first year the Expanded Neutral Zone was defined. The 1977 Case Book states "Even though the neutral zone is expanded, it is illegal for an ineligible to advance beyond his line of scrimmage during a pass which crosses the line unless he made initial contact with an opponent on the line and he maintained contact while driving him behind the defensive line of scrimmage".  "When an ineligible is beyond his line without being legally in contact with an opponent he is blocking, it is illegal,....."
I remember being taught that on forward pass plays the neutral zone expands differently for each offensive lineman depending on if and who and when he blocks.

[CalhounLJ]

Thank you SDR. 
That is why I reviewed Case Plays and other material regarding the expanded neutral zone.  I didn't find anything that specifically changed the ruling for forward pass plays from the first year the Expanded Neutral Zone was defined. The 1977 Case Book states "Even though the neutral zone is expanded, it is illegal for an ineligible to advance beyond his line of scrimmage during a pass which crosses the line unless he made initial contact with an opponent on the line and he maintained contact while driving him behind the defensive line of scrimmage".  "When an ineligible is beyond his line without being legally in contact with an opponent he is blocking, it is illegal,....."
I remember being taught that on forward pass plays the neutral zone expands differently for each offensive lineman depending on if and who and when he blocks.

According to the case play in 7-5 and the comment in the point of emphasis, that philosophy seems to have changed over the years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bossman72]

In the 2020 Points of Emphasis, under the section dealing with Ineligibles Downfield, there is the following language: 

The position of the ineligible Team A player at the moment of the legal pass is the only factor in determining if the player is illegally downfield. When identifying Team A players who are illegally downfield, it is important to make sure that the Team A player is clearly beyond the expanded neutral zone (2 yards) at the moment that the pass is in flight.

However, when you look in the case book at 7.5.12 SITUATION A, it doesn’t appear that there is any change in how the rule is interpreted.

SITUATION A:  At the snap, interior lineman A1 moves about 3 yards downfield and finding no one to block, retreats behind the neutral zone and blocks for A2 who eventually throws a forward pass which crosses the neutral zone.  RULING:  A1 is an ineligible who is illegally downfield.  The prohibition against ineligibles downfield for Team A starts at the snap, and the fact that A1 was no longer downfield when the pass was thrown has no bearing on the ruling.  COMMENT:  Ineligible Team A players may advance into the expended neutral zone during a down in which a legal forward pass is thrown, but may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone. 


How should the language of the POE be interpreted.  There was not a change in the rule or the case book interpretation from the NFHS.  It doesn't seem like both the statement in the POE and the case book interpretation can be correct. 

That case play was just illustrating that if you go beyond the ENZ, you can't legally retreat and be ok.

Let the buffalo roam to 2 yards.  Nobody wants the LOS enforced strictly like that, and I think that's what the POE was trying to say.  As long as they're behind 2 yards, we're good.

Now the tricky part... when are they considered beyond 2 yards?  Breaking the plane?  Feet position like the passer beyond the LOS?  Need to be completely beyond?

[CalhounLJ]

That case play was just illustrating that if you go beyond the ENZ, you can't legally retreat and be ok.

Let the buffalo roam to 2 yards.  Nobody wants the LOS enforced strictly like that, and I think that's what the POE was trying to say.  As long as they're behind 2 yards, we're good.

Now the tricky part... when are they considered beyond 2 yards?  Breaking the plane?  Feet position like the passer beyond the LOS?  Need to be completely beyond?

In our games they have to be a full yard beyond two yards before we
Think about throwing a flag. #pileon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

In our games they have to be a full yard beyond two yards before we
Think about throwing a flag. #pileon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I was taught many years ago.  When the U move up to about 2-1/2 to 3 yards beyond the NZ and bubba doesn't draw a flag unless he is at my level or beyond.  No nits!  Also, we should keep in mind that the origins of the rule are two fold; to not penalize an offensive lineman for overpowering his opponent, and to leave give us some rational basis to decide if bubba is really confusing the defense and drawing pass coverage.

[bossman72]

In our games they have to be a full yard beyond two yards before we
Think about throwing a flag. #pileon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know that's the philosophy we should use, but what's the actual rule?

[AlUpstateNY]

I know that's the philosophy we should use, but what's the actual rule?

Sometimes (actually more often than not) being technically "right" turns out NOT to be as important, or relevant, as cracked up to be.

The NFHS "Official's Manual" (top of pg 6) suggests, "Game Officials must have a football sense which supersedes the technical application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly. Game Officials are expected to exercise good judgment in applying the rules."

There's a lot of helpful, practical and useful advice in "Prerequisites for Good Officiating" in only 3 pages of this manual (pp 5-7).

[CalhounLJ]

I know that's the philosophy we should use, but what's the actual rule?

Actual rule is player cannot be beyond. We interpret beyond as entire person completely beyond. (At least a yard).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bossman72]

Actual rule is player cannot be beyond. We interpret beyond as entire person completely beyond. (At least a yard).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems they didn't define beyond.  So therefore, leave it up to us.  I like being completely beyond.