Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob M.
REPLY: Correct...you do not throw the flag until the pass crosses the neutral zone. Up until that point, you have no foul.
But...The way the original play is described, I believe you might have ineligibles downfield. I don't believe there's enough information to decide. Here's the wording of the rule
7-5-12: "Ineligible A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone is in flight. If B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this restriction is terminated. An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, he immediately contacts a B lineman and the contact does not continue beyond the expanded neutral zone."
The first sentence says nothing more than ineligibles are not allowed to go beyond the expanded neutral zone before the pass is in flight...ever. That's all it says. It does not say that they're always allowed into the expanded neutral zone. If it did, the last sentence would be unnecessary, and you'd have a much simpler rule.
What the last sentence does is qualify that the only ineligibles who are allowed beyond the neutral zone and into the expanded neutral zone are those who have initiated blocks against a B lineman and driven him into the expanded neutral zone. An ineligible A player who goes into the ENZ without blocking an opponent there is guilty of being illegally downfield when the pass is thrown. Therefore, you have five individual cases to evaluate--one for each ineligible: Was he beyond the NZ? If so, did he block an opponent there? And finally, did he go beyond the ENZ?
Since phansen's original play simply said that they blocked defenders and then let them through, you can't fully determine if a foul has been committed. If they blocked them into the ENZ and then let them through, everything's fine. But if they simply blocked at the LOS, let them through, and then stepped up into the ENZ, they're going to be guilty of ineligible downfield when the pass crosses the neutral zone.
|
Here was my assessment of 7-5-12 back at the end of August. What do you think Bob?
7-5-12 Ineligible A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone is in flight. If B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this restriction is terminated. An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, he immediately contacts a B lineman and the contact does not continue beyond the expanded neutral zone.
This rule seems to say two things. One is that ineligibles can't go beyond the expanded neutral zone prior to the pass being in flight. It also says that an ineligible is not downfield illegally if he is contacting a B lineman in the expanded neutral zone. Table 7-5 excludes the last statement. There are no case book plays directly related to this.
If the rule was that ineligibles could not advance beyond the neutral zone unless they were blocking in the expanded neutral zone then it should say that. It does not.
If they wanted to allow ineligibles to go into the expanded neutral zone without blocking and it not be a foul then they should only say that. However they expand on the original statement to include the blocking exception. Thus I believe that 7-5-12 is poorly written.
But I believe that each sentence in the rule book must be true when read by itself. Thus,
Ineligible A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone is in flight. must be a binding statement. Exceptions can be added to any statement but the original statement must stand.
If the rule is that ineligibles can't be beyond the neutral zone unless they are blocking in the expanded neutral zone then remove the word "expanded" from the first sentence in 7-5-12. Otherwise don't try to create a pseudo-exception by adding the third sentence.
I think they don't want ineligibles downfield at all unless they are blocking in the expanded neutral zone but I'm not sure the rules fully agree.