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.
|
Maybe I should clarify, then, if I misled you as to the intent of what I said.
If such a player effects the play, or influences the play in any manner, it's IP. If it is POSSIBLE that he affected the play or influenced the play, it's IP. However, it can also be IP even if he did not influence or effect.
I think the burden of proof, if you will, lies on the side of IS. If you are in doubt between the two, it's IP. If you are POSITIVE the player had no effect (as is usually the case in a player who is ALMOST off the field, but not quite, or one that continues to run straight off the field and the play goes the other way, for examples), then you have IS.