New “Defenseless” Receiver Rule

[Bobref]

I am not a big fan of the manner in which the Rulebook deals with “defenseless” players. It does a great job of defining what is meant by “defenseless,” and gives helpful examples of defenseless players. But, IMO, does not do a very good job of telling us what sort of contact against such a player is legal, and what constitutes unnecessary roughness, and is a foul. The new definitions contained in Rule 2-32-16, however, provide that guidance … but only with regard to defenseless receivers (or interceptors, as the rule applies equally to offense and defense).

I sought, and received, an official interpretation of the new rule from Asst. Commissioner Faulkens. Regardless of how awkwardly the new rule goes about it, the official interpretation is as follows:

In the case of a defenseless receiver, the only types of forcible contact permitted against such a receiver are:

1. Contact initiated with open hands and arms extended, just like in the blindside block rule.
2. Contact during an attempted “form tackle,” i.e., where the opponent’s contact includes an attempt to “wrap up” the receiver.
3. Contact occurring in the course of a legitimate attempt to make a play on the football.

Any forcible contact against a defenseless receiver that does not fit into one of these three categories is a foul, either for unnecessary roughness or targeting (if the contact is above the shoulders).

No more ESPN highlight hits on receivers, trying to separate them from the ball.

Prediction: In the coming years we will see this type of specific protection extended to all types of defenseless players.

[US31]

On 7/21/2023 at 9:04 AM, Bobref said:

It does a great job of defining what is meant by “defenseless,” and gives helpful examples of defenseless players.

Not having an NFHS book around....can you tell us how this is defined?  Thanks Bob👍

[Slobberknocker]

On 7/21/2023 at 9:04 AM, Bobref said:

I am not a big fan of the manner in which the Rulebook deals with “defenseless” players. It does a great job of defining what is meant by “defenseless,” and gives helpful examples of defenseless players. But, IMO, does not do a very good job of telling us what sort of contact against such a player is legal, and what constitutes unnecessary roughness, and is a foul. The new definitions contained in Rule 2-32-16, however, provide that guidance … but only with regard to defenseless receivers (or interceptors, as the rule applies equally to offense and defense).

I sought, and received, an official interpretation of the new rule from Asst. Commissioner Faulkens. Regardless of how awkwardly the new rule goes about it, the official interpretation is as follows:

In the case of a defenseless receiver, the only types of forcible contact permitted against such a receiver are:

1. Contact initiated with open hands and arms extended, just like in the blindside block rule.
2. Contact during an attempted “form tackle,” i.e., where the opponent’s contact includes an attempt to “wrap up” the receiver.
3. Contact occurring in the course of a legitimate attempt to make a play on the football.

Any forcible contact against a defenseless receiver that does not fit into one of these three categories is a foul, either for unnecessary roughness or targeting (if the contact is above the shoulders).

No more ESPN highlight hits on receivers, trying to separate them from the ball.

Prediction: In the coming years we will see this type of specific protection extended to all types of defenseless players.

I guess IMG was not aware of this rule. The IMG players were like darn that was a good hit.

 

[JustRules]

This is close. The defender is not guilty of a personal foul against a defenseless receiver if he wraps him up as part of the hit. It looks like the defender may do this, but I can't tell for sure. You also have a potential targeting call since his helmet may have hit the defender high causing the helmet to come off. I can't tell for sure on this video if the helmet was contacted. Helmets do come off on legal  hits like this if they aren't tight enough. 

[Slobberknocker]

10 hours ago, JustRules said:

This is close. The defender is not guilty of a personal foul against a defenseless receiver if he wraps him up as part of the hit. It looks like the defender may do this, but I can't tell for sure. You also have a potential targeting call since his helmet may have hit the defender high causing the helmet to come off. I can't tell for sure on this video if the helmet was contacted. Helmets do come off on legal  hits like this if they aren't tight enough. 

I appreciate your reply and your perspective. I have no intention of criticizing or questioning the decisions of the Officials. My goal is to learn more about the rules and the nuances of the game, which enhances my enjoyment as a fan.

In this case I think than the IMG play led with the shoulder and did not wrap up the runner, so I believe this was a correct call. I had to watch it multiple times in slow motion to come up with conclusion so hats off to the office that made the call in real time, very Impressive. 

Here is a similar play from week 2 CG vs Oakland Where player wrapped up the receiver on the hit so no penalty. This play brought up another question. The Question Is receiver possession of a catch. Official ruled catch then fumble. I am not sure what the rule is in high school football.

play starts about 1:48 in video.

 

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, Slobberknocker said:

I appreciate your reply and your perspective. I have no intention of criticizing or questioning the decisions of the Officials. My goal is to learn more about the rules and the nuances of the game, which enhances my enjoyment as a fan.

In this case I think than the IMG play led with the shoulder and did not wrap up the runner, so I believe this was a correct call. I had to watch it multiple times in slow motion to come up with conclusion so hats off to the office that made the call in real time, very Impressive. 

Here is a similar play from week 2 CG vs Oakland Where player wrapped up the receiver on the hit so no penalty. This play brought up another question. The Question Is receiver possession of a catch. Official ruled catch then fumble. I am not sure what the rule is in high school football.

play starts about 1:48 in video.

 

Incomplete pass. That way you don’t have to concern yourself with that very iffy block in the back call that takes away the TD.

[Slobberknocker]

18 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Incomplete pass. That way you don’t have to concern yourself with that very iffy block in the back call that takes away the TD.

I do agree with the iffy block in the back, but this was not a one-off call, it seems like on every punt, WR blocking play there was a block in the back call or holding call.  I made a joke to my wife that official's arms are probably as tired as QB1 arms. I was not bother by this because it was consistently called, and the teams should adjust. it is when calls are not consistently called that it bothers me.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Slobberknocker

[Bobref]

7 minutes ago, Slobberknocker said:

I do agree with the iffy block in the back, but this was not a one-off call, it seems like on every punt, WR blocking play there was a block in the back call or holding call.  I made a joke to my wife that official's arms are probably as tired as QB1 arms. I was not bother by this because it was consistently called, and the teams should adjust. it is when calls are not consistently called that it bothers me.

To clarify, there was definitely contact from behind. My problem is it had no effect on the play. Illegal block in the back is not considered a safety foul, so it is only called when it has a material effect on the outcome of the play.

[Slobberknocker]

4 hours ago, Bobref said:

To clarify, there was definitely contact from behind. My problem is it had no effect on the play. Illegal block in the back is not considered a safety foul, so it is only called when it has a material effect on the outcome of the play.

same video at 5:23 there was a block in the back call. How do you judge it had an effect on the play.

[Bobref]

25 minutes ago, Slobberknocker said:

same video at 5:23 there was a block in the back call. How do you judge it had an effect on the play.

If you’re talking about the block by #58 on the intercepting team, that’s a good call. The block was right at the point of attack, and the player being blocked missed the tackle.