|
I believe that by rule this play is neither IP or incomplete. It's an odd loophole in the rule for a situation that is almost unlikely to ever occur! If you are going to call this IP, you are also going to call the following play an IP:
A80, while in his route, steps on the sideline and leaps for a pass. He catches it while airborn and lands (a) out of bounds or (b) in bounds.
If you are in the incomplete pass camp for the first play, you have to rule incomplete only for both of these plays as well. If you are in the IP camp, you would rule IP for both of these plays as well.
I think most officials would agree (a) is just an incomplete pass and (b) could be correctly ruled IP but some would probably just rule incomplete.
If a coach is going to intentionally run a play that involves a receiver touching out of bounds, leaping, catching and throwing or batting the ball to a teammate SUCCESSFULLY, and having that receiver do anything with it from there is probably not going to be coaching very long. If they pull this off, I think it's still a live ball with no fouls. The case play Welpe used was from a few years ago and we don't know if it was removed to make space or because it's no longer a valid interpretation.
Regardless, this play is probably never going to happen so what's the point getting so emotional about it? Go with your own opinions and move on.
|