Pass into the line, thought processes

[Rich]

I worked umpire for the first time ever last night. I'm normally a back judge or referee, but I am thinking of starting a varsity crew and feel I should have a working knowledge of all the positions, so I'm going to work umpire when I can during the week.

My question involves the thought processes on passes into or near the line -- ones that are first touched by an ineligible receiver.

In NFHS rules, what questions do the officials need to ask themselves in determining whether or not there is a penalty?

The play that got me thinking happened last night. 2-point try from the 8 yard line. A4 drops back to pass and is hit as he releases the ball. I was unsure if the ball was tipped, and the hit definitely affected the pass.

The ball hits ineligible A56 in the helmet (it was not a muff, bat, etc.). I stepped up but wasn't entirely sure whether A56 was behind the neutral zone.

Please guide me through the thought processes of the officials involved and how you would sort out this play.

Rich

[northindyref]

Excellent situation that I encountered for the first time just last week.

My suggestion is to throw the flag to the spot of touching since this becomes the basic spot. From there you can determine if the touching was in the neutral zone or down field. This determines if it is illegal touching or offensive pass interference. Then the penalty can be enforce properly.

[Schmidt MJ]

Illegaly touching only applies behind the NZ and only if it is an intentional act by the ineligible player. If the ball simply hit the player then there is no foul, If the player batted, knocked down, tipped, etc... or otherwise made an attempt to play the ball then you have illegal touching. If all this occurs beyond the NZ, then you have OPI. If the ball had been touched by the defense prior to the ineligible player touching the ball then you have no foul as all players are now able to touch/catch the ball.

[Rich]

Well, one of the problems is that if the ball simply HITS the lineman behind the neutral zone (and is not a bat, muff, or catch) it is NOTHING. See 7-5-13.

Edited to add: The previous poster beat me to this. But the rules say nothing about an intentional act being required for OPI if the ineligible is beyond the neutral zone.

Rich


[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Sep 26th, 2003 at 09:46 AM]

[Smiley]

As umpire, you need to know if a pass crosses the LOS. That is why the mechanic calls for the umpire to step up to the LOS as soon as he reads pass. You shouldn't be watching the passer, but the blockers around the passer. It is the referees's call to rule whether or not the ball is tipped, although if you happen to see it, you can help.

[cmathews]

Rich,
In my mind, if it is not an intentional act, and you aren't sure if it was in the NZ or downfield, I would err on the side of the NZ. If it was intentional it is a different story, but really if it hit him because the QB got hit, and he didn't even know it was coming, I am thinking it would be extreme to penalize him if you aren't sure if he is in or out or even if after checking you see that he is a step beyond the NZ....

[Rich]

I was unsure whether the ball was tipped because I was not watching the passer, like Smiley mentioned. I just know the ball came out strangely. I found out later there was no tip, rather the QB was hit when releasing the pass.

I did step up, but the lineman clumped right in the middle where I was stepping up in the other pass plays, so I didn't get to the line. I'm sure there are ways to get there anyway, but like I said, I'm a bit inexperienced in the position.

I know how I'd prefer this situation handled if I was the white hat, though (which I do a LOT more than U ). I would prefer a flag thrown immediately and then picked up after conference with the U rather than the other way around. And cmathews's advice, I think, is excellent. Benefit of the doubt should definitely be on the side of not flagging this, same as we would do with a passer being "close" to the LOS when releasing the ball.

Rich

[keystoneref]

Rich I have to disagree a little bit. You were sure the ball hit the ineligible in the helmet therefore you are sure the act was unintentional. The only question therefore was the touch in the nz or beyond the nz. It was either OPI if beyond the zone or nothing if in or behind the nz. As a white hat I would rather you throw your bean bag to the spot look at it and then if it was beyond the neutral zone, flag it. I feel its much easier to explain a late flag then trying to explain a wave off. Either way that you do it will work, I just like the bean bag way better.

[sportsump2003]

When, as an Umpire, when you read pass, you should start towards the line. If you were not sure that the ball was tipped and it touches A56 and you are not sure if he is beyond the NZ, then no flag. I go with if you are not sure, then he is in or behind the NZ. If he WAS beyond the NZ then drop the flag and after the play you can ask your partners if it was touched or not. You can always wipe it off if it wasn't. If it was you have a righteous flag. If the ball touches A56 in or behind the NZ whether or not the ball was tipped doesn't matter, no foul for illegal touching. There has to be an intentional act to possess. You asked yourself the right questions. Was the pass tipped by B, was A56 in or beyond the NZ, was the touching by A56 from in or behind the NZ intentional. In time these questions for an Umpire come immediately, but naturally.

[Rich]

As a white hat, I disagree with keystoneref, but I'm starting to think that is just personal preference. I can explain a wave off easier, I think, then the umpire throwing a flag well after a play was over.

YMMV.

Rich