I have watched some high school games out of Texas and they return the ball from the end zone. Is Texas not part of the NFHS?

Texas plays with mostly NCAA rules with a few exceptions. This year they are playing with 2005 NCAA rules with a few exceptions because of the general disdain for the 2006 timing rule changes in the NCAA.

The interpretation has generally been once he (an eligible receiver) makes a move, a cut if you will, to run a passing type pattern then he's no longer blocking for the guy with the ball..

 

We're not talking about players on offense coming out to block the defense. We're talking about players on defense initiating contact with an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker. The responsibility for this foul is on the defense.

 

A blocker is someone who is contacting the opponent to keep them from getting after the runner, the guy with the ball. The foul prohibits the defense from making contact against an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker. Thus, if an eligible receiver comes off the line and turns or simply starts going out for a pass, and its pretty clear that's it's a passing play, then the defense must avoid contact. The line is rarely gray on this one.

 

To answer the question posed, I would think the DB would know the difference based on the criteria I just gave. It is up for him to know and most of them are pretty smart. The "how was I supposed to know" defense just doesn't work. That's like saying how was I supposed to know the guy I just knocked into the stands 30 yards away from the play was obviously no longer in the play? Or, if a DB is concentrating on the guy he's covering how is he supposed to know the pass was in the air so he could not interfere? He's supposed to know because he's a smart player who is paying attention to his surroundings and what's going on and knows what is allowed to do or not allowed to do by rule.

 

I can tell you that many coaches do not know the above and actually teach their defenders to level a receiver "as long as the ball is not in the air."

The interpretation has generally been once he (an eligible receiver) makes a move, a cut if you will, to run a passing type pattern then he's no longer blocking for the guy with the ball..

 

We're not talking about players on offense coming out to block the defense. We're talking about players on defense initiating contact with an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker. The responsibility for this foul is on the defense.

 

A blocker is someone who is contacting the opponent to keep them from getting after the runner, the guy with the ball. The foul prohibits the defense from making contact against an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker. Thus, if an eligible receiver comes off the line and turns or simply starts going out for a pass, and its pretty clear that's it's a passing play, then the defense must avoid contact. The line is rarely gray on this one.

 

To answer the question posed, I would think the DB would know the difference based on the criteria I just gave. It is up for him to know and most of them are pretty smart. The "how was I supposed to know" defense just doesn't work. That's like saying how was I supposed to know the guy I just knocked into the stands 30 yards away from the play was obviously no longer in the play? Or, if a DB is concentrating on the guy he's covering how is he supposed to know the pass was in the air so he could not interfere? He's supposed to know because he's a smart player who is paying attention to his surroundings and what's going on and knows what is allowed to do or not allowed to do by rule.

 

I have to totally disagree with your point on the reciever can tell a difference between a route and a block.

 

For example how can a d.b. tell the difference between a crack block by a wide receiver and a slant route? They are suppose to look a like so there is not way for the ref to know that. That's the idea of a crack block that the corner will chase down inside like a slant and a team can run a toss sweep or some type of outside play to get outside where that corner vacated from.

 

Just from what I have seen in my few years I have never seen a good football let teams run crossing routes across the middle of the field without linebackers or safeties jamming them when they cross. That should be illegal but happens all the time. Many teams who give you twins to one side will jam the inside receiver to keep them from having two verticals going down field.

 

Boyle County makes a living off of jamming the tight end and not letting him run routes.

 

I assure you if you give Bell County twins they will beat the crap out of the inside receiver.

 

Many teams today vs. spread offense run a hard cover 2 and will jam the outside receiver to keep him in the flats, and this is never called.

 

I could go on and on how defenses make contact will eligable recievers in everyday defensive schemes. We need to quit babying receivers by telling defensive players "you can't hit them unless they hit you". It's football if recievers are not tough enough to get out on a route with a little bit of contact thrown their way then tough luck. This players needs to get better. Football is a phyiscal game.

 

Anyway, I can't think of the last time a flag was thrown for a defensive player hitting a wide out before the ball was in the air. I think this rule is all most like the lane violation in the NBA. Doesn't really exist anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBRULES

The interpretation has generally been once he (an eligible receiver) makes a move, a cut if you will, to run a passing type pattern then he's no longer blocking for the guy with the ball..

 

We're not talking about players on offense coming out to block the defense. We're talking about players on defense initiating contact with an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker. The responsibility for this foul is on the defense.

 

A blocker is someone who is contacting the opponent to keep them from getting after the runner, the guy with the ball. The foul prohibits the defense from making contact against an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker. Thus, if an eligible receiver comes off the line and turns or simply starts going out for a pass, and its pretty clear that's it's a passing play, then the defense must avoid contact. The line is rarely gray on this one.

 

To answer the question posed, I would think the DB would know the difference based on the criteria I just gave. It is up for him to know and most of them are pretty smart. The "how was I supposed to know" defense just doesn't work. That's like saying how was I supposed to know the guy I just knocked into the stands 30 yards away from the play was obviously no longer in the play? Or, if a DB is concentrating on the guy he's covering how is he supposed to know the pass was in the air so he could not interfere? He's supposed to know because he's a smart player who is paying attention to his surroundings and what's going on and knows what is allowed to do or not allowed to do by rule.

 

I have to totally disagree with your point on the reciever can tell a difference between a route and a block.

 

For example how can a d.b. tell the difference between a crack block by a wide receiver and a slant route? They are suppose to look a like so there is not way for the ref to know that. That's the idea of a crack block that the corner will chase down inside like a slant and a team can run a toss sweep or some type of outside play to get outside where that corner vacated from.

 

Just from what I have seen in my few years I have never seen a good football let teams run crossing routes across the middle of the field without linebackers or safeties jamming them when they cross. That should be illegal but happens all the time. Many teams who give you twins to one side will jam the inside receiver to keep them from having two verticals going down field.

 

Boyle County makes a living off of jamming the tight end and not letting him run routes.

 

I assure you if you give Bell County twins they will beat the crap out of the inside receiver.

 

Many teams today vs. spread offense run a hard cover 2 and will jam the outside receiver to keep him in the flats, and this is never called.

 

I could go on and on how defenses make contact will eligable recievers in everyday defensive schemes. We need to quit babying receivers by telling defensive players "you can't hit them unless they hit you". It's football if recievers are not tough enough to get out on a route with a little bit of contact thrown their way then tough luck. This players needs to get better. Football is a phyiscal game.

 

Anyway, I can't think of the last time a flag was thrown for a defensive player hitting a wide out before the ball was in the air. I think this rule is all most like the lane violation in the NBA. Doesn't really exist anymore.

 

Both of you may be potentially a little off base. Until the receiver is occupies the same yard line as the defender, he is ALWAYS a potential blocker by all of the published HS interps. It is not a foul to "jam" them, not by rule or intent unless the receiver has occupied the same yard line (or beyond of course). The defender doesn't have to guess what the receiver is doing, nor vice-versa (by rule).

I certainly did not say throw the flag every time there is contact. I simply stated the rule. Officials still have to decide whether or not contact gained and advantage and use some common sense.

 

The rule says "no longer a potential blocker." The indicates that some sort of football move has been made making it clear he is a receiver. If he's on the same line then he's still a potential blocker. As to the crack back the rule does not apply because he is still a potential blocker for someone running the ball. I think much ado is being made of something without really looking at the clear intent of the rule.

 

I'm not going to argue with someone who may or may not like the rule, but that's what it is.

 

The rule book does not say, "You can't hit them unless they hit you" and no one else said that on here. You did. The rule book states that contact against an eligible receiver is prohibited after he is no longer a potential blocker. That's not difficult to understand really.

I certainly did not say throw the flag every time there is contact. I simply stated the rule. Officials still have to decide whether or not contact gained and advantage and use some common sense.

 

The rule says "no longer a potential blocker." The indicates that some sort of football move has been made making it clear he is a receiver. If he's on the same line then he's still a potential blocker. As to the crack back the rule does not apply because he is still a potential blocker for someone running the ball. I think much ado is being made of something without really looking at the clear intent of the rule.

 

I'm not going to argue with someone who may or may not like the rule, but that's what it is.

 

The rule book does not say, "You can't hit them unless they hit you" and no one else said that on here. You did. The rule book states that contact against an eligible receiver is prohibited after he is no longer a potential blocker. That's not difficult to understand really.

 

You interpretation is clearly incorrect, and with your moniker, you are giving yourself credibility when in fact, you might be wrong. I would strongly suggest you contact the state office who can clear up your misinterpretation. Half the battle is being able to read a rule book. The other half is being able to correctly apply it. Trust me, you are batting 50% on this one and may want to seek a state interpretation.

FBRules' interpretation is totally accurate. Once the receiver makes a move to run a pass route, then he is no longer a potential blocker, and the defender cannot contact him. It is up the the defender to know if the receiver is running a route or blocking for a runner, and adjust.

 

Rule 9-2-3d... A defensive player shall not contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.

 

A receiver is no longer a potential blocker when he makes move or cuts to get into his pass route. Since pass interference restrictions for team A begin at the snap, it is OPI if the receiver blocks beyond the NZ before going into his pass route. So receivers may not chuck the DE or OLB before running his route.

 

As for the crack back block mentioned above...

If a wideout comes down the line toward the DE or LB he is still a potential blocker, and can be blocked by the defender. It must be clear that the receiver is running a route to get protection from contact.

You interpretation is clearly incorrect, and with your moniker, you are giving yourself credibility when in fact, you might be wrong. I would strongly suggest you contact the state office who can clear up your misinterpretation. Half the battle is being able to read a rule book. The other half is being able to correctly apply it. Trust me, you are batting 50% on this one and may want to seek a state interpretation.

Read the NFHS rules/case book...Take the test..Get certified and call a game with that interpretation and my quess it would be your last for that association. I am not "covering" my fellow officials, but FBrule is 100% correct on this.

Edit>cut

 

Sorry, decided to retract my comment.

 

Man, I'm gonna miss that fumble-rooskie.

"...potentially a little off base...may want to seek a state interpretation."

 

I don't care who you are, THAT's FUNNY!

Edit>cut

 

Sorry, decided to retract my comment.

 

Man, I'm gonna miss that fumble-rooskie.

 

Having the intention to deceive is a lame argument. Why do we have fake handoffs, blitzes, snap counts etc. It takes guts to put the ball on the ground to try to move it forward it should be allowed. I'm not questioning your interpretation of the rule but football is all about deception. Otherwise the biggest, fastest team would always win.

Having the intention to deceive is a lame argument. Why do we have fake handoffs, blitzes, snap counts etc. It takes guts to put the ball on the ground to try to move it forward it should be allowed. I'm not questioning your interpretation of the rule but football is all about deception. Otherwise the biggest, fastest team would always win.

 

Maybe it is a lame argument, but it was a poster's opinion as to why the rule was changed and was clearly stated as such. I didn't post it, and I personally don't think that's the reason the "fumblerooski" was eliminated. If you want to know why the rule was changed, contact the National Federation of State High School Associations. 317-972-6900. They make the rules, we enforce them as they dictate.

 

It is my opinion that the rule was changed because it was archaic and obscure. The "planned loose ball" play was eliminated from the NFL and NCAA rules years ago, and this change brings the HS code in line with those codes. Like it or not, some things do trickle down.

 

This thread has deteriorated somewhat from its intended purpose. There are many officials who prowl about here who are always willing to offer insight about the rules. But we are not inclined to argue for the sake of it.

 

 

offside

Here's a link to a video from a state association talking about the rule we have "discussed" recently. The first play is the rule we have been talking about. The receiving coming across the middle is not a potential blocker for the runner, he's knocked off his route, and a foul. The official at the top of the screen looks to be going for his pocket for a flag, but I don't know if the foul was missed or not. The second play is another example of illegal use of hands, a rare one. I like the fact that the narration indicates that it was not until the team started getting an advantage that this foul should be called.

 

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=3062e9fec25ab6e58718bde0e8c612ff.698905&fr=yvmtf

 

I trust this will help.

 

FBRULES

Here's a link to a video from a state association talking about the rule we have "discussed" recently. The first play is the rule we have been talking about. The receiving coming across the middle is not a potential blocker for the runner, he's knocked off his route, and a foul. The official at the top of the screen looks to be going for his pocket for a flag, but I don't know if the foul was missed or not. The second play is another example of illegal use of hands, a rare one. I like the fact that the narration indicates that it was not until the team started getting an advantage that this foul should be called.

 

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=3062e9fec25ab6e58718bde0e8c612ff.698905&fr=yvmtf

 

I trust this will help.

 

FBRULES

 

I had no clue that 2nd play would be a penalty. Good stuff.