|
|
|
Sat Sep 11, 2004, 07:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
In a 7th grade game using NFHS, the coach previewed us on some plays that might be confusing. One was a screen pass that his lineman would go downfield about 4-5 yards before the ball was passed, but his fullback would catch it behind the neutral zone so it wouldnt be an ineligible receiver downfield. Not being sure, I checked on it quick. All I could find was Table 7-5 #3, Ineligible Receiver Downfield.
It states: Ineligible A players may not advance across the expanded neutral zone before the last pass which crosses the neutral zone is in flight unless touched by B in or behind the neutral zone. This doesnt seem to be on point because the coach said the ball would be caught behind the neutral zone, not crossing the neutral zone in flight. They didnt run the play, so it was a non-issue. Can someone please help me out with this, though? In NFHS, is it an foul ineligible receiver downfield foul on a forward pass that is caught behind the neutral zone as Ive described in the example above? 
|
|
Sat Sep 11, 2004, 09:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, it's not. If a pass doesn't cross the NZ, you can't have an ineligible downfield foul.
|
|
Sat Sep 11, 2004, 10:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
You have just described the classic screen pass play! If a receiver catches the pass behind the NZ, ineligible receivers (linemen) may be downfield blocking. If the pass is caught beyond the NZ, the yellow hanky should be flying.
__________________
"I love it when they boo!"
|
|
Sat Sep 11, 2004, 11:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sun Sep 12, 2004, 01:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The above replies are correct. Many times the ball does cross the NZ so beaware. We have been instructed that the proper technique is, if in question, officials down field throw the flag and the umpire will rule on the pass crossing the LOS or not crossing. If not crossing ; referee waves off the flag.
|
|
Mon Sep 13, 2004, 10:01am
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the pass is caught behind the NZ, there will be no ruling on pass interference either.
Can the DE come up and knock the receiver down behind the LOS and intercept the ball?
__________________
CW4 Paul Gilmore Installation Food Advisor Camp Beauregard Alexandria, LA Louisiana NG
|
|
Mon Sep 13, 2004, 10:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Also remember - it's when the pass if first touched. A couple of years ago, we actually had a spirited disagreement amongst the officials when the ball initially hit the RB behind the LOS, but he didn't catch it. It went up and forward, beyond the LOS, where he DID catch it.
The other thing to remember as a newer official is that it is not the INTENT of the offense that matters, but rather where the ball ACTUALLY is caught (first touched). You'll see a screen pass go across the line every once in a while, and flag it - coach will chew your ear off - "THAT WAS A SCREEN PASS!!!" but if it went across the LOS, IT WASN'T a screen pass.
|
|
Mon Sep 13, 2004, 11:13am
|
|||
|
|||
|
To Chiefgil:
NF yes a reciever behind the neutral zone can be hit by B even if the pass to him is in flight( provided that the pass does not cross the NZ). HOWEVER he can't clip him, block in the back, hold him or anything else that is normally deemed illegal. If they hold him, they are charged with a holding foul, if they clip him they are gullty of clippig ETC but not DFI.
|
|
Fri Oct 07, 2016, 05:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Situation #1: Sweep to the right. A20 is running down the field with A80 following closely behind. B50 in pursuit pushes A80 in the back to get to A20. I've always called and seen this called as legal. Situation #2 (related to the OP): A5 is in the flat, behind the NZ. With the pass in flight, B10 pushes A5 in the back and intercepts the pass. I've seen this happen, and I've not seen it called. Replace either case with holding, and I still have no foul. Indeed, I fail to see how B can ever be called for holding expect in cases where they pull an A player in an attempt to make a path for another B player (such as on punt of FG block attempts). In every case, B can push or pull to get to the runner or a loose ball. Finally, as for clipping, I would call this. Since this is a block below the waist, I fail to see how it can be interpreted as an attempt to get to a loose ball or the runner. But it reminds me of a call we had some time ago. Situation #3: A10 is running up the middle with A79 in front as a lead blocker. B5 dives at the feet of A79. We called an illegal block on B5 (much to the consternation of the crowd and coach). The only case of contact below the knees I can see is if there is a loose ball at the feet of a player, and in an attempt to recover the loose ball a B player hits an A player. But that's the judgment call. I don't think B is obligated to avoid contact below the knees or from behind if it is an honest attempt to get to a loose ball or runner.
|
|
Sat Oct 08, 2016, 11:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by HLin NC; Sat Oct 08, 2016 at 11:16am. Reason: update
|
|
Mon Sep 13, 2004, 11:33am
|
|||
|
|||
|
SJOldGuy: How come B can't block that receiver in the back? Take a look at 9.3.5b and tell me if you still disagree. My logic is B can legally touch or catch the pass so I'm thinking that would be legal. Agree?
|
|
Mon Sep 13, 2004, 01:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Very interesting ljudge! What I was thinking was (is) that B wasn't trying to intercept the pass.B in my mind on this play was only trying to prevent an offense completion. In that case (official's judgment) you have illegal block in the back. Over the years I have been in many training sessions that supported this call. Never did anyone bring up your point. I have a feeling that you are correct in your applying 9-3-5b if, in the judgment of the covering official, that is the situation. I don't want to accept it in this forum unless I am 100% sure! I suggest we contact our rules intepretor for finally ruling. I am going to be to busy, as usual, with the cadets and their game schedules tonight at the meeting. Can you do it and let me know.
|
|
Mon Sep 13, 2004, 08:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The rules interpreter was in our referee's position meeting all night so I had a chance to ask him. At first he thought block in the back but I brought up this rule (9.3.5b) and his interpretation is exactly what you expected. Since he B can legally touch the ball he can hit the receiver in the back (behind NZ) but if he's not going for the ball he believes a flag should be thrown. So, intent is also the key from his perspective.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Thank you
Hybrid Mode
