Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
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.
|
We are in agreement that it can be IP without effecting the play. This play is a great example – B76’s movement toward the play indicated he was trying to participate but he had no influence or effect on the play itself.
And he could influence the play without actually intending or trying to participate. Say, B76 had not changed his direction to the team box but inadvertently caused the receive to alter his route – certainly that is IP. That is an effect on the play.
Here is where we apparently disagree. I think the burden of proof is on IP. If I don’t see participation or something that actually influences the play – it has to be IS. Is it a judgment call – absolutely. But like the bad analogy of the BIB, unless you actually see something that constitutes the participation or influence, I don’t think IP should be called.