Question about jamming receivers at line.

[WILDMAN]

With the 5 yard buffer zone, would it be pass interference if a DB were to go knock the lights out of a receiver before the ball got to them on a play like a bubble screen?

[fbcoachcdub]

In high school there is no buffer zone. You can make contact with a player until the ball is released by the QB.

[HitStick]

In high school there is no buffer zone. You can make contact with a player until the ball is released by the QB.

 

What he said. As long as they dont grab or trip (intentionally) the receiver... line backers are taught to eliminate crossing receivers.

[kypride]

As long as the ball is not in the air.

[whataboutthis]

What he said. As long as they dont grab or trip (intentionally) the receiver... line backers are taught to eliminate crossing receivers.

 

But they could be called for illegal use of the hands if the reiever is in a pass route.

[Hey-Ref]

Coach above is right, there is no buffer, or 5 yard chuck rule, like in the NFL.

It is legal to block a receiver to prevent him from getting off the line. However, once it becomes evident that receiver is not a blocker, but indeed is a receiver, you may not impede him anymore. This means that once he makes his first move to get into a receiving pattern, or gets past the defender, he is off limits.

 

Examples:

1) Receiver A1 tried to get past the defender B1 at the snap by making a head fake in one direction and running in another direction. He cannot be contacted after he makes this move, because it is evident is a receiver, and not a blocker. If B1 blocks him after this move, B is guilty of an illegal block.

2) Receiver A1 blocks the defender B1 because he knows there is a run to this side of the field. He can be contacted by B players, because he is a blocker, and not a receiver.

3) Receiver A1 blocks the defender trying to sell a sweep to his side, then gets separation and begins running a slant route. A1 is guilty of OPI.

 

If the pass is a screen pass, that is, one thrown to a receiver behind the neutral zone, it is legal to contact that receiver, as long as the contact is otherwise legal. Otherwise legal contact is not from behind, below the waist, unnecessarily rough, or holding.

 

Pass interference restrictions for B players begin when the ball is thrown, as long as it is thrown beyond the neutral zone.

 

Pass interference restrictions for A players begin at the snap.

[Hey-Ref]

What he said. As long as they dont grab or trip (intentionally) the receiver... line backers are taught to eliminate crossing receivers.

 

Eliminating receivers crossing the middle is a foul. As I said in an earlier post, once they establish themselves as receivers they are off limits. Depending on how rough this contact to eliminate them is, you would be flagged for illegal blocking (10 yards) or a personal foul for unnecessarily rough contact (15 yards).

[oldonetechnique]

This call is almost never made correctly in High School games, Passing teams are usually mugged by press teams due to the poor techniques used in High School. It is amazing how much Offensive holding spread teams get called for in kentucky and the lack of Defensive holding that is called.

[CoachJ]

Eliminating receivers crossing the middle is a foul. As I said in an earlier post, once they establish themselves as receivers they are off limits. Depending on how rough this contact to eliminate them is, you would be flagged for illegal blocking (10 yards) or a personal foul for unnecessarily rough contact (15 yards).

 

And the strike zone in baseball is SUPPOSED to be from the letters on the chest to the knees. That doesn't mean that's the way it's called.

 

It may be that it's SUPPOSED to be a foul...but I've been in games where umpires told me I was an idiot if I thought he was going to call a LB for "re-routing" a receiver dragging over the middle. He could've cared LESS what the rule in the book said...in HIS interpretation, that was NOT a foul -- UNLESS the ball was in the air already.

[FBRULES]

Actually, with all respect to my fellow officials and respected coaches, the rule does not say "no longer a blocker." It says a "potential blocker." There's a big difference. A blocker is one who is blocking and a potential blocker is one who has the chance to block. An offensive player going across the middle surely has the potential to block should the runner decide to run the ball instead of pass it. This is a very rare call because it's hard to get it by rule. Unless the contact is made by a defender who is on the same yard line as the would be receiver bascially looking him in the eye, he is a potential blocker, and legal to be contacted. Offenses do not have a right to run a pass pattern in high school football. Officials read too much into this rule when they call a foul because a would be receiver has made a cut and is running what could possibly, may or may not be, a potential, could be or not, pass pattern. See what I mean? Officials should not act like mind readers and say a would be receiver was running a pattern. It's good defense to legally keep receivers from running routes.

 

For you rules gurus out there, notice in rule 2 that we have a definition for just about every kind of player and situation. But, we do not have a definition of a receiver. And, it just may be hard to define. For example, a passer is not a passer until he passes the ball. A kicker is not a kicker until he kicks the ball. But, you cannot say a receiver is a receiver until he catches the ball, can you? The rule book in other portions of the book apart from the definitions talks about receivers in several places yet fails to define just what one is. On that matter, the book is silent. This is important actually in this rule referenced above because just when is a receiver a receiver? By the way, there is a definition for blocker.

 

At least CoachJ and I have one thing in common---we've both been called idiots by the other group but never by each other.

[Under the Lights]

Actually, with all respect to my fellow officials and respected coaches, the rule does not say "no longer a blocker." It says a "potential blocker." There's a big difference. A blocker is one who is blocking and a potential blocker is one who has the chance to block. An offensive player going across the middle surely has the potential to block should the runner decide to run the ball instead of pass it. This is a very rare call because it's hard to get it by rule. Unless the contact is made by a defender who is on the same yard line as the would be receiver bascially looking him in the eye, he is a potential blocker, and legal to be contacted. Offenses do not have a right to run a pass pattern in high school football. Officials read too much into this rule when they call a foul because a would be receiver has made a cut and is running what could possibly, may or may not be, a potential, could be or not, pass pattern. See what I mean? Officials should not act like mind readers and say a would be receiver was running a pattern. It's good defense to legally keep receivers from running routes.

 

For you rules gurus out there, notice in rule 2 that we have a definition for just about every kind of player and situation. But, we do not have a definition of a receiver. And, it just may be hard to define. For example, a passer is not a passer until he passes the ball. A kicker is not a kicker until he kicks the ball. But, you cannot say a receiver is a receiver until he catches the ball, can you? The rule book in other portions of the book apart from the definitions talks about receivers in several places yet fails to define just what one is. On that matter, the book is silent. This is important actually in this rule referenced above because just when is a receiver a receiver? By the way, there is a definition for blocker.

 

At least CoachJ and I have one thing in common---we've both been called idiots by the other group but never by each other.

 

My only problem with this is it is simply too inconsistently applied. I don't care which way it is called, but pick one and make it a point of emphasis. It shouldn't change if a team travels from WKY to Lexington or Louisville.

[FBRULES]

I have a feeling that they say that at every level including the NFL, don't you?

[CoachJ]

Actually, with all respect to my fellow officials and respected coaches, the rule does not say "no longer a blocker." It says a "potential blocker." There's a big difference. A blocker is one who is blocking and a potential blocker is one who has the chance to block. An offensive player going across the middle surely has the potential to block should the runner decide to run the ball instead of pass it. This is a very rare call because it's hard to get it by rule. Unless the contact is made by a defender who is on the same yard line as the would be receiver bascially looking him in the eye, he is a potential blocker, and legal to be contacted. Offenses do not have a right to run a pass pattern in high school football. Officials read too much into this rule when they call a foul because a would be receiver has made a cut and is running what could possibly, may or may not be, a potential, could be or not, pass pattern. See what I mean? Officials should not act like mind readers and say a would be receiver was running a pattern. It's good defense to legally keep receivers from running routes.

 

For you rules gurus out there, notice in rule 2 that we have a definition for just about every kind of player and situation. But, we do not have a definition of a receiver. And, it just may be hard to define. For example, a passer is not a passer until he passes the ball. A kicker is not a kicker until he kicks the ball. But, you cannot say a receiver is a receiver until he catches the ball, can you? The rule book in other portions of the book apart from the definitions talks about receivers in several places yet fails to define just what one is. On that matter, the book is silent. This is important actually in this rule referenced above because just when is a receiver a receiver? By the way, there is a definition for blocker.

 

At least CoachJ and I have one thing in common---we've both been called idiots by the other group but never by each other.

 

I know from experience FBRULES really knows football. I'm assuming HeyRef is an official and knows football too.

 

The fact that there is at least SOME difference in opinion between them points out what I believe the original poster was referencing: that there are differences in INTERPRETATION (or in this case, maybe APPLICATION) of this rule from one crew to another.

 

With this kind of interpretation discrepancy between different crews how should we coach our Linebackers? (Reminds me of when I used to teach OL they couldn't "hold" because that's what the rules and that previous crew says...then we play a "Zone" team that grabs cloth all night and this crew now says that's not really holding "as long as he keeps his hands inside the frame of the defender").

 

One week we get a crew that applies the rule as FBRULES does (virtually impossible to tell when a receiver is a receiver or a potential blocker) and our receivers get "re-routed" the entire game and it ruins our underneath passing game. So the next week in practice, we tell our LB's to do the same but we get a crew that believes like Hey-Ref does and we're flagged so we have to tell them to play completely opposite how they were taught all week.

 

Open question to my striped friends out there...what should we teach?

[FBRULES]

I think that as long as we have 12 regions of officials and probably 500+ officials this will always be a challenge especially in regular season games. I think it would be helpful if we had more statewide interpretations, communications, and an embrace of technology to illustrate those points. My understanding is that it should be coming, hopefully sooner than later.

 

I can only speak of how the training in our own region is based. The is we are working, the very best we can, on information supplied by the federation and the state high school athletic association. Even then, there are no guarantees. I can promise you I call the game much different in the 17th year of officiating than the 3rd year. Thankfully! But, here's the rub. All of the training stuff is a freebie. If you want to do it right, it takes countless hours of putting together film, writing up rules helps for folks, and hashing out mechanics. Plus, you must make room for people to learn from their mistakes. That's hard in a business where you are expected to be perfect and then get better. Are all the areas doing it? Should they? Is this valuable enough to raise pay? Pay the trainers? Train the trainers? Right now, it's work for free, altruistically, and hope for the best.

 

It's not like there is a line of people waiting to get to varsity football or that assigners have a list of 40 qualified people ready to take the place of those who aren't cutting it. And, that leads to some complacency as well.

 

The game is always going to have interpretation and judgement, hopefully more judgement than interpretation. Hopefully, officials have a keen sense of what illegally gains and advantage and what doesn't.

 

And, sometimes fouls have to called (I hate to say that) even when a team doesn't get an advantage. For example, I think there should be a rule change that if an offensive unit only have 10 players on the field and only 6 on the line (the rule requires 7), then that should not be a foul. How does that make any difference? It would not bother me if we happened to miss that one.

 

The better we can call what really matters and let the other stuff go the better off we are. Or, as I like to say, let's don't major in the minors. Of course, there are going to be some times when we say we disagree on what's major and what's minor. It would be easy to say call everything if it violates the rule. Where should we start? 5 yards any time a mouthpiece is out, 15 yards for the 3rd and subsequent time more than three, and I mean three coaches, are in the coach's box? Automatic unsportsmanlike conduct whenever a coach steps on the field illegally (that would be anytime, by the way, except for an injury time out or a charged team time out)?

[offside]

I know from experience FBRULES really knows football. I'm assuming HeyRef is an official and knows football too.

 

The fact that there is at least SOME difference in opinion between them points out what I believe the original poster was referencing: that there are differences in INTERPRETATION (or in this case, maybe APPLICATION) of this rule from one crew to another.

 

With this kind of interpretation discrepancy between different crews how should we coach our Linebackers? (Reminds me of when I used to teach OL they couldn't "hold" because that's what the rules and that previous crew says...then we play a "Zone" team that grabs cloth all night and this crew now says that's not really holding "as long as he keeps his hands inside the frame of the defender").

 

One week we get a crew that applies the rule as FBRULES does (virtually impossible to tell when a receiver is a receiver or a potential blocker) and our receivers get "re-routed" the entire game and it ruins our underneath passing game. So the next week in practice, we tell our LB's to do the same but we get a crew that believes like Hey-Ref does and we're flagged so we have to tell them to play completely opposite how they were taught all week.

 

Open question to my striped friends out there...what should we teach?

 

Coach, that is a great question.

 

1. I think you should know the rules as they are written and be able to teach them to the kids as football fundamentals. I think you should take the NFHS Part 1 Rules Exam and then teach and test your student athletes on the rules of the game they play. Smart players win football games and make coaches famous.

 

2. I also think you should teach the kids that official's judgement will always be a part of the game. Sometimes calls against your team are too ticky-tack, sometimes an obvious foul gets missed. Teach the student athletes to overcome adversity in a sportsmanlike manner above all other lessons.