The "cut block" is an excellent example of an inconsistantly enforced rule. I've seen it called on a TE sealing a DE and I've seen it NOT called on a WR blind-siding a safety downfield on a rolling block.

 

IMO, if the wording of a rule is such that it may be interpreted multiple ways (as per "illegal substitution"), it is by definition a bad rule.

 

As far as a "cut block" is concerned, it would be much simpler and maintain safety for players if ALL blocks below the waist were disallowed. And with "illegal substitution", it would be make more sense to NEVER put officials in the position of making a judgement call about "intent" - if the player is within the 9 yd. side mark after the ready signal that should be enough (shame on a defense not paying attention to any offensive player still on the playing field !!).

 

 

 

I think the cut-block is pretty straight forward. The only place the cut-block is legal is in the free-blocking zone while the ball is in the zone. That's it!! It is not a cut-block if the block starts above the waist and slides down. I think the rule is pretty clear.

But really (not to defend coaches) it wasn't a pretend substitution in this case.

 

If it is 3rd and 5 at the 50 and they run the ball up the middle for no gain.......and the "punt" call comes from the sidelines......and four players run on the field and three run off .......and the wide receiver that was on the field for the 3rd down play...........starts towards the sidelines yelling at the coach for the play call..........

 

who's to say deception was involved? The coach could yell back, "Shut up and get out here wide and Go!!!.

 

Like I said it works to perfection.

 

 

 

Exactly what offside said..... If the officials judges that they were trying to decieve the defense, it would be a foul.

Legal. The rule is you can't break the huddle with 12.

 

And besides, I've seen many a receiver get set up like that in games.

I think the cut-block is pretty straight forward. The only place the cut-block is legal is in the free-blocking zone while the ball is in the zone. That's it!! It is not a cut-block if the block starts above the waist and slides down. I think the rule is pretty clear.

Not trying to be argumentative but what is it called then? I've always thought of that type of block as a legal cut block and much more than that, the PROPER way to do a cut block. It is a safe way to take out the defender IMO. The ones that I see called are just flat out dangerous. You could easily end someones carreer by going after their knees. I've seen it happen.

Not trying to be argumentative but what is it called then? I've always thought of that type of block as a legal cut block and much more than that, the PROPER way to do a cut block. It is a safe way to take out the defender IMO.

 

blocking below the waist.... As mentioned, the only time you can block legally below the waist is while the ball is in the free blocking zone, basically at the snap. The only players that can do it must be on the line at the snap! Yes, if you have a LB seaking up into a slot, he can be blocked below the waist.

 

Also, RB's cannot block below the waist of a defender coming to sack the qb. Neither can a defensive man hit a pulling guard to attempt to break the play up.

Legal. The rule is you can't break the huddle with 12.

 

And besides, I've seen many a receiver get set up like that in games.

 

 

please go back and read earlier post on this topic....

I think the cut-block is pretty straight forward. The only place the cut-block is legal is in the free-blocking zone while the ball is in the zone. That's it!! It is not a cut-block if the block starts above the waist and slides down. I think the rule is pretty clear.

 

It's too easy for the "legal" cut block (started high and slid low) to only be seen during at the end where it's illegal.

 

Once again... It's easier on the officials and easier on everyone's knees if blocks below the waist were ALL illegal no matter where they happen.

Legal. The rule is you can't break the huddle with 12.

 

And besides, I've seen many a receiver get set up like that in games.

 

I sound like a broken record, but here's another one making up the rules when they don't know them---obviously.

I sound like a broken record, but here's another one making up the rules when they don't know them---obviously.

 

FBRULES I've got a question for you. I know that the rule has been changed where a player with a number 50-79 can line up in the backfield and run the ball but the ball can't be thrown to them. This is true no matter where they line up, no more reporting in as an eligible receiver. If a team uses a player with one of these numbers in the backfield and they go downfield on a pass is this a penalty for ineligible receiver downfield even if the ball isn't thrown to them. I was thinking it would be but didn't know if where they lined up mattered.

A player must be eligible by position and by number. Thus, if the ineligible number (say 70 for example) lines up as a running back and then goes beyond the neutral zone AND THE FORWARD PASS CROSSES THE LINE then he is guilty of ineligible receiver downfield (5 yards, previous spot, repeat the down). 70 (and any other ineligible) would be allowed to go downfield once the pass that crosses the line has been released from the passer's hand.

 

High schools rules for at least 18 years has never had a rule where a player could report eligibility with a ineligible number. I suspect it's never been allowed.

 

Good question.

My only question is: then why is it not enforced? I have seen many teams, who run the spread, line up with wide outs, and run a dive up the middle, the WR never moves on the play, they then linup, in no huddle, without coming inside the numbers and run an audible and run another play.

 

That is my concern, some of the rules, especially the more obscure rules, are called by some crews and not called by other crews. That is one thing that adds to the misunderstanding of the rules. Like the cut block, I have asked multiple officials to explain this, and I have at least four different explanations. Does that mean that all four are wrong? No, it means at least three of the officials do not understand the rule. I have had it called against my team, I ask the official how to do it legally, the next game we do it as instructed, and we are penalized, I again ask the official how to do it legally, and again the next game we do it as explained, and we are penalized. Please do not try to explain the cut block, I was just using it as an explanation, and I now instruct my players to not do it in any manner, because it always gets penalized. I have a copy of the rule book, I know what it says, but I am more concerned with how the official enforces the rule then I am about what the book says.

 

All people want in consistency.

 

There has been a little lenacy toward this rule while teams adjusted to the rule. In th future it will be called just like everything else.

Legal. The rule is you can't break the huddle with 12.

 

And besides, I've seen many a receiver get set up like that in games.

 

 

 

No, this is not correct. There is absolutely nothing in the NFHS rulebook concerning breaking the huddle with 12 players. This is NOT an infraction in HS football. Many people believe that this is a rule but it is NOT a NFHS rule. It is perfectly legal to break the huddle with 12 players. The rule states that the replaced player must leave the field immediately but does not specify breaking the huddle with 12 players. It is not a penalty.

 

 

p.s. I hear that alot from coaches and fans alike. Anytime you hear this come from the stands, feel free to correct them concerning this rule. Thanks.

No, this is not correct. There is absolutely nothing in the NFHS rulebook concerning breaking the huddle with 12 players. This is NOT an infraction in HS football. Many people believe that this is a rule but it is NOT a NFHS rule. It is perfectly legal to break the huddle with 12 players. The rule states that the replaced player must leave the field immediately but does not specify breaking the huddle with 12 players. It is not a penalty.

 

 

p.s. I hear that alot from coaches and fans alike. Anytime you hear this come from the stands, feel free to correct them concerning this rule. Thanks.

 

This is the rule that they get from the great commentators on television....

 

Comment on the inelgible number, your example, if 70 caught the forward pass downfield, it is now illegal touching, 5 yard penalty from previous spot and a loss of down..... This rule was changed a couple of years ago, use to be OPI, 15 and a LOD.....

 

sorry for all the abbrev, if I lose you, just ask what the heck is that....

 

good questions and please keep asking, we learn as well....

A player must be eligible by position and by number. Thus, if the ineligible number (say 70 for example) lines up as a running back and then goes beyond the neutral zone AND THE FORWARD PASS CROSSES THE LINE then he is guilty of ineligible receiver downfield (5 yards, previous spot, repeat the down). 70 (and any other ineligible) would be allowed to go downfield once the pass that crosses the line has been released from the passer's hand.

 

High schools rules for at least 18 years has never had a rule where a player could report eligibility with a ineligible number. I suspect it's never been allowed.

 

Good question.

 

Can #70 catch a screen pass?

Can #70 catch a screen pass?

 

I'm guessing that he could only catch it if it were thrown as a lateral. Is that correct?