Play -

A41 and B25 are running stride-for-stride near the sideline. Their feet inadvertently become tangled and both players lose their balance. When their feet became tangled (a) both players were looking for the ball; (b) neither player was looking for the ball; or (c) A41 was looking for the ball, but B25 was not.

I read this play and wanted to see what you guys think?

[ref18]

Sounds legal to me, I'm not sure exactly what call could be made here, although I could be wrong.

[MJT]

Originally posted by tpaul
A41 and B25 are running stride-for-stride near the sideline. Their feet inadvertently become tangled and both players lose their balance. When their feet became tangled (a) both players were looking for the ball; (b) neither player was looking for the ball; or (c) A41 was looking for the ball, but B25 was not.

I read this play and wanted to see what you guys think?

In NF, covered word for word in casebook 7.5.10d of 2004 casebook. No foul in A and B, but DPI in C.

In NCAA I cannot find the an AR to cover it, but there is one saying if there feet get tangled, no foul, but no mention to if B is not looking back and A is. I think it would be no foul in A and B, but a foul in C as well.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by tpaul
A41 and B25 are running stride-for-stride near the sideline. Their feet inadvertently become tangled and both players lose their balance. When their feet became tangled (a) both players were looking for the ball; (b) neither player was looking for the ball; or (c) A41 was looking for the ball, but B25 was not.

I read this play and wanted to see what you guys think?

Assuming the pass went incomplete (because both players are now on the ground):

(a) incomplete pass
(b) incomplete pass
(c) incomplete pass

In Cdn amateur ball, inadvertant feet tangling is nothing.

MJT,
got it perfect! the key in NFHS is the defender must look at the ball or it is DPI....I read it and wasn't sure if you guys heard that one before...Just review my passing game!

MJT how did you know it was, "In NF, covered word for word in casebook 7.5.10d of 2004 casebook. No foul in A and B, but DPI in C."

Do you have a 2004 casebook?

[MJT]

Originally posted by tpaul
MJT,
got it perfect! the key in NFHS is the defender must look at the ball or it is DPI....I read it and wasn't sure if you guys heard that one before...Just review my passing game!

MJT how did you know it was, "In NF, covered word for word in casebook 7.5.10d of 2004 casebook. No foul in A and B, but DPI in C."

Do you have a 2004 casebook?

Yep, I will not get my 2005 casebook for a couple of more weeks, but remembered that one specifically, and is one of the many things I have highlighted from going thru last years book.

[Topshelf]

You will find it in the same place in the 2005 Case Book.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: What's sad is the inordinate number of officials who will flag this as PI in cases (a) and (b) also. And they will inevitably call it DPI, giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: What's sad is the inordinate number of officials who will flag this as PI in cases (a) and (b) also. And they will inevitably call it DPI, giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense.

I'm kind of suprised you say that, especially for case (a) because I know this occurs many times on TV and it is also nocalled there. Now for case (b) I can see why someone would want to flag someone there.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

I'm kind of suprised you say that, especially for case (a) because I know this occurs many times on TV and it is also nocalled there. Now for case (b) I can see why someone would want to flag someone there.

REPLY: Just from my own observation. I know it's justifiably 'no-called' on Saturdays and Sundays, but not every official necessarily subscribes to that philosophy. I still see too many guys flagging this.