OSU-Central Michigan finish

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by CT1

Was this even IG? Wasn't done to conserve time or avoid loss of yardage.

OL let DL by, and two of them were right on the QB. Had to throw or risk being sacked. A sack by definition is a loss of yards.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

OL let DL by, and two of them were right on the QB. Had to throw or risk being sacked. A sack by definition is a loss of yards.

But look at 7-3-2. The relevant provisions are all "The passer to conserve time..." and "The passer to conserve yardage..." What's material to this case is not whether a loss of yardage would've occurred, but what the passer's motiv'n was. The ball was not thrown to conserve either time or field position, but to consume time. So I don't see intentional grounding.

Suppose it were an opposite kind of situation. Time for the half expires during the down before A1 throws an intentionally incomplete forward pass under conditions where it looks like team A would've liked another down. It would not in fact have conserved time, but the passer's purpose was to conserve time, so it's intentional grounding. I doubt anyone would care about the enforcement, because the period ends anyway, but that's what's meant by those "The passer to..." phrases: to outlaw certain passes on the basis of the passer's purpose, not the result.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But look at 7-3-2. The relevant provisions are all "The passer to conserve time..." and "The passer to conserve yardage..." What's material to this case is not whether a loss of yardage would've occurred, but what the passer's motiv'n was. The ball was not thrown to conserve either time or field position, but to consume time. So I don't see intentional grounding.

Suppose it were an opposite kind of situation. Time for the half expires during the down before A1 throws an intentionally incomplete forward pass under conditions where it looks like team A would've liked another down. It would not in fact have conserved time, but the passer's purpose was to conserve time, so it's intentional grounding. I doubt anyone would care about the enforcement, because the period ends anyway, but that's what's meant by those "The passer to..." phrases: to outlaw certain passes on the basis of the passer's purpose, not the result.

His motivation was to avoid being sacked. That he threw it high, far, and to an area with no receiver is an additional aspect to the play that doesn't remove the fact that two defenders would have easily tackled him without the throw.

Avoiding the sack conserves yardage (item h): the incomplete pass means that B would take over further from A's EZ than if he was sacked.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

His motivation was to avoid being sacked. That he threw it high, far, and to an area with no receiver is an additional aspect to the play that doesn't remove the fact that two defenders would have easily tackled him without the throw.

Avoiding the sack conserves yardage (item h): the incomplete pass means that B would take over further from A's EZ than if he was sacked.

But throwing the ball to avoid being tackled is immaterial unless it's to (the word used in the book) conserve time or get a more favorable spot. The word "to" requires purpose. The player did not care where the next spot would be. He didn't want to leave time on the game clock, either. So the conditions for IG don't apply.

This is a tactic which is not against the rules: throwing the ball high (in any direction), not trying for a completed pass, to consume time.

[Robert Goodman]

Try this: A1 on 4th & 20 runs 10 yards past his LOS, then throws the ball forward, high, and far out of bounds to use up an extra 2 seconds to end either half. It's still an illegal forward pass. Still loss of down. Does the player care where the next spot is going to be? No. So why would you penalize for IG if he were behind the LOS and threw a forward pass for the same purpose? He still doesn't care what the next spot was going to be.

How about if he throws it nearly directly sideways? Are you going to take pains to figure out whether it was a forward or backward pass, so you can see whether you could call IG?

This is not a situation for which the IG provisions were adopted.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

This is a tactic which is not against the rules: throwing the ball high (in any direction), not trying for a completed pass, to consume time.

Robert, you're trying to float a LEAD canoe. The IG call by the crew was a technically correct call, unfortunately a really GLARING mistake was made on the enforcement.

Occasional mistakes are something each and everyone of has made, somewhat repeatedly, but thankfully not as highlighted as this one. The crew was wrong, is accountable, will suffer some consequences and hopefully get past the embarrassment and second guessing before their next on field assignment, and God willing, "the beat will go on".

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Robert, you're trying to float a LEAD canoe. The IG call by the crew was a technically correct call,

No, it's not. CT1 got it right. IG can occur only when a passer tries to prevent a loss of field position (between being down there and the previous spot) or of time in the period. You can throw the ball to a space with no receivers if you're not doing so intentionally for either purpose -- I gave the example above of a cross-up regarding the receiver's route. I've seen plenty of passes like that that were correctly not flagged for that reason. If this weren't the case, those "to conserve" provisions wouldn't've been written into paras. f-h.

[umpjim]

Baseball guy. Question: Can a football coach lodge a protest of a rule missaplication after a play?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, it's not. CT1 got it right. IG can occur only when a passer tries to prevent a loss of field position (between being down there and the previous spot) or of time in the period. You can throw the ball to a space with no receivers if you're not doing so intentionally for either purpose -- I gave the example above of a cross-up regarding the receiver's route. I've seen plenty of passes like that that were correctly not flagged for that reason. If this weren't the case, those "to conserve" provisions wouldn't've been written into paras. f-h.

Letter of the rule vs spirit. It's grounding by the spirit. I'd flag this every time.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, it's not. CT1 got it right. IG can occur only when a passer tries to prevent a loss of field position (between being down there and the previous spot) or of time in the period. You can throw the ball to a space with no receivers if you're not doing so intentionally for either purpose -- I gave the example above of a cross-up regarding the receiver's route. I've seen plenty of passes like that that were correctly not flagged for that reason. If this weren't the case, those "to conserve" provisions wouldn't've been written into paras. f-h.

Forgive me, but what part of NFHS 7-5-2-e "An illegal forward pass is a foul. Illegal forward passes include:
a
b
c
d
e. A pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time."

does NOT apply specifically to the action described in this situation? The key differential between this play and your example seems to be intent, as determined by the covering official (duly empowered to render such judgments).