Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dumbref
I agree! And in fact IP was called on this play for that reason. B76’s altered movement toward the receiver was a tangible act that constituted IP. My point is – I see to many posts that use “effect or influence” as an excuse to make it IP. I think there has to be a “reason” or tangible act to use that part of the rule.
|
REPLY: That's because the new Federation definition for 'participation' uses the word 'influence.' However...once B76 makes a move toward the runner, I may have no clear idea of whether he influenced the play or not. Maybe, just maybe, he stole the attention of one or more Team A blockers just enough that the runner was tracked down and tackled by his teammate. Who knows for sure? But I know one thing...once B76 began pursuing the runner and put himself into that position where someone can make the judgment that he truly did 'participate,' then he's responsible for the consequences. I'll give every benefit of the doubt to Team A in this situation. The fact that I even had to think about it makes it IP to me.