Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie
One other thing to think about: when the receiver basically gives up on a ball. When I work back judge, the receiver still has to make the effort, to the extent he can, to get to the ball. If he's knocked down, get's spun around, or otherwise is taken out of the play by the contact of the defender, then this isn't really an issue. However, if he simply gets blocked and then gives up, I'm not going to bail him out with a call even if he possibly could get to the ball. This happens more at the lower levels than it does at the varsity or college level, but I have seen even those receivers go out of bounds and just expect a flag to be thrown.
|
Why do you rule that way? If the act of interference (or in your opinion, what
would have been interference had the potential receiver kept after the ball) took place at a given time, what difference should it make to the team's options, other than to allow the play to stand, how the player acted after the interference? For instance, if the ball is thrown and then he "simply gets blocked and then gives up", but it appears that the ball would have been catchable by that player had not the interference taken place, why shouldn't the player expect the flag to be thrown, even if he just sits down at that point?
How about this one: B1 enters the neutral zone, and A1, seeing that, calls for the snap and spikes the ball. Do you void the encroachment because A1, satisfied to draw the foul instead of making an attempt to play, didn't justify the penalty?