Block below the waist contradiction?

[Grant - AR]

Do these two rules contradict each other?

9-1-5 Exception 3 - When a player attempts to reach a runner or attempts to legally recover or catch a fumble, a backward pass, a kick or a touched forward pass, that player may push an opponent below the waist at or to the buttocks.

9-3-6 Exception 3 - When a player attempts to reach a runner or legally attempts to recover or catch a fumble, a backward pass, a kick or a touched forward pass, that player may push an opponent in the back above the waist.

[JasonTX]

9-1-5 is for Clipping and 9-3-6 is for a Block in the Back.

[ElvisLives]

No.
9-1-5 is Clipping, and 9-3-5 is Blocks in the Back. Clipping begins where Blocks in the Back end. Both exceptions reduce the limitations of, or - in the case of 9-3–5 Blocks in the Back - eliminates the limits of of their respective rules.

Effectively, 9-1-5-EX 3 and 9-3-5-EX 3 work together to make blocks in the back and clips down to the buttocks of an opponent legal, by a player attempting to reach a loose ball, other than a forward pass behind the NZ.

Effectively 9-1-5 EX 4 and 9-3-5 EX 5 work together to make blocks in the back and clips down to the buttocks legal, if by an eligible player on an opponent while attempting to reach a forward pass behind the NZ.

[Grant - AR]

I get that they are about clipping and blocks in the back.  Maybe the wording needs to be cleaned up a little bit.  When 9-3-6-Exception 3 says, "that player may push an opponent in the back above the waist," that tells me it's illegal to push below the waist.  But, then 9-1-5-Exception 3 says it is legal to push below the waist. 

[ElvisLives]

I get that they are about clipping and blocks in the back.  Maybe the wording needs to be cleaned up a little bit.  When 9-3-6-Exception 3 says, "that player may push an opponent in the back above the waist," that tells me it's illegal to push below the waist.  But, then 9-1-5-Exception 3 says it is legal to push below the waist.

Grant, pushing below the waist is illegal, because that would be clipping. As I'm sure you know, there was a time when blocking anywhere in the back (head to toe) was clipping. The penalty for clips that were occurring above the waist seem to the rules makers to be too great. So they adopted the concept of clipping being at/below the waist (and from behind) - a 15 yard penalty, with blocks from behind above the waist as being "blocks in the back" - a 10-yard penalty. So, the two rules work together to cover any kind of block from behind, but with differing penalties whether above or below the waist.
I don't believe the rule language needs adjustment. One picks up where the other leaves off.

[JDM]

9-3-6 Exception 3 - When a player attempts to reach a runner or legally attempts to recover or catch a fumble, a backward pass, a kick or a touched forward pass, that player may push an opponent in the back above the waist.

My understanding of the rule is that although the term "push" is used, blocking (2-3-1-a) is legal.

[ElvisLives]

9-3-6 Exception 3 - When a player attempts to reach a runner or legally attempts to recover or catch a fumble, a backward pass, a kick or a touched forward pass, that player may push an opponent in the back above the waist.

My understanding of the rule is that although the term "push" is used, blocking (2-3-1-a) is legal.

A question I would have liked to have asked Redding back in my FBS days, but never got around to it. "Pushing" is specifically defined as ..."blocking an opponent with open hands." (2-3-1-b) Why define it separately if it is to be lumped in with any kind of blocking? (2-3-1-a)  I believe they truly mean pushing. The point being that a player can push an opponent in the back above the waist to try to move the opponent out of the way to attempt to reach a ball that is loose from a forward pass. Such blocking is not usually intended to create much 'punishment,' whereas a full-on shoulder or forearm block is more intended to drive an opponent to the ground with as much intensity as possible. And, it would be much more difficult to legitimately attempt to reach a loose ball while shoulder/forearm blocking the opponent. A bit of a loose distinction, I'll grant you. But I believe this to be the truth.

[JDM]

A question I would have liked to have asked Redding back in my FBS days, but never got around to it. "Pushing" is specifically defined as ..."blocking an opponent with open hands." (2-3-1-b) Why define it separately if it is to be lumped in with any kind of blocking? (2-3-1-a)  I believe they truly mean pushing. The point being that a player can push an opponent in the back above the waist to try to move the opponent out of the way to attempt to reach a ball that is loose from a forward pass. Such blocking is not usually intended to create much 'punishment,' whereas a full-on shoulder or forearm block is more intended to drive an opponent to the ground with as much intensity as possible. And, it would be much more difficult to legitimately attempt to reach a loose ball while shoulder/forearm blocking the opponent. A bit of a loose distinction, I'll grant you. But I believe this to be the truth.

Perhaps it's more of a philosophy that's being taught?

Here's a question from a respected study group from earlier this year:

18.   A 4/1 at the B-38. Team A's FG attempt comes up short. B26 catches the kick five yards deep in the end zone and begins to run. During the return, B33 blocks a Team A player in the back at the B-15.  As B26 continues the return, A41 blocks a Team B player in the back at the 50 in his attempt to get to B26. B26 continues and carries the ball across Team A's goal line.

a.   B 1/10 at the B-7.5, snap.  B33 commits a foul for an illegal block in the back at the B-15.  This foul will be enforced from the spot of the foul as it occurred behind the end of the related run.  A41 has not fouled as he is legally able to block in the back in an attempt to get to the ball carrier.  The foul will be enforced half the distance and Team B will keep the ball.  The clock will start on the snap following enforcement of Team B’s penalty (2-3-4, 2-25-10, 6-3-5, 8-4-2-b-2, 9-3-6, Exception 3, 10-2-2-c-1 & 2, 10-2-2-d-2). 

[ElvisLives]

Perhaps it's more of a philosophy that's being taught?

Here's a question from a respected study group from earlier this year:

18.   A 4/1 at the B-38. Team A's FG attempt comes up short. B26 catches the kick five yards deep in the end zone and begins to run. During the return, B33 blocks a Team A player in the back at the B-15.  As B26 continues the return, A41 blocks a Team B player in the back at the 50 in his attempt to get to B26. B26 continues and carries the ball across Team A's goal line.

a.   B 1/10 at the B-7.5, snap.  B33 commits a foul for an illegal block in the back at the B-15.  This foul will be enforced from the spot of the foul as it occurred behind the end of the related run.  A41 has not fouled as he is legally able to block in the back in an attempt to get to the ball carrier.  The foul will be enforced half the distance and Team B will keep the ball.  The clock will start on the snap following enforcement of Team B’s penalty (2-3-4, 2-25-10, 6-3-5, 8-4-2-b-2, 9-3-6, Exception 3, 10-2-2-c-1 & 2, 10-2-2-d-2).

Precisely why I would have liked to have spoken to Redding about this language. I don't think any coordinator today would consider a 'pass' on such a block as being incorrect. That may not be totally correct, per the rule language, but I believe that is how it would be judged.

[AlUpstateNY]

Precisely why I would have liked to have spoken to Redding about this language. I don't think any coordinator today would consider a 'pass' on such a block as being incorrect. That may not be totally correct, per the rule language, but I believe that is how it would be judged.

A "diamond" is different than any other "rock".  We have to fully understand the difference, between an illegal "block" and a legal "push", as explained, and applied, in the Rule (code) we're working under, based on the unique and specific action we're looking at. "One size NEVER fits all", and we are responsible to decide (judge) what we actually see, and respond appropriately.

Lombardi suggested, ""Perfection is NOT attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."  Unfortunately, the "chase" NEVER ends.