The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Ineligible illegal touching (https://forum.officiating.com/football/15574-ineligible-illegal-touching.html)

BigGref Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:40pm

A24 gets covered up on the end of the line by Wideout A95(A24 ineligible)
A24 goes down the field 15-20 yards
QB passes to A24
Safety B20 runs over to make a play and mistimes a play at the ball and knocks A24 to the ground clearly before the ball gets there.

What do we got?

biglaz Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:00am

NFHS
 
If A24 touched the ball (past NZ) then it's OPI. If not then just Ineligible downfield. Depending on the contact caused by B20 you could possibly call a block in the back or something of that nature, hard to say without seeing it.

Patton Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:06am

According to 7-5-10(a), you can't have defensive pass interference against an ineligible receiver. So assuming the contact by B wasn't a personal foul, the only thing you would have is ineligible downfield if A24 didn't touch the pass or OPI if he did.

JugglingReferee Sun Sep 26, 2004 08:13am

Canadian Ruling
 
Quote:

Originally posted by BigGref
A24 gets covered up on the end of the line by Wideout A95(A24 ineligible)
A24 goes down the field 15-20 yards
QB passes to A24
Safety B20 runs over to make a play and mistimes a play at the ball and knocks A24 to the ground clearly before the ball gets there.

What do we got?

DPI is against eligible pass receivers only.

Could have unnecesaary roughness though. That's 15+1D.

Forksref Sun Sep 26, 2004 09:23am

Re: Canadian Ruling
 
Quote:

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Quote:

Originally posted by BigGref
A24 gets covered up on the end of the line by Wideout A95(A24 ineligible)
A24 goes down the field 15-20 yards
QB passes to A24
Safety B20 runs over to make a play and mistimes a play at the ball and knocks A24 to the ground clearly before the ball gets there.

What do we got?

DPI is against eligible pass receivers only.

Could have unnecesaary roughness though. That's 15+1D.

What is "unnecessary roughness?" If you are thinking it is a personal foul, it is not an automatic first down.

Snake~eyes Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:22am

I thought the same thing at first, then looked at the author, its canadian ruling. :/

Forksref Sun Sep 26, 2004 02:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
I thought the same thing at first, then looked at the author, its canadian ruling. :/


Heck, they can't even count to four. No wonder it's a weird ruling.

Rich Sun Sep 26, 2004 04:58pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Forksref
Quote:

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
I thought the same thing at first, then looked at the author, its canadian ruling. :/


Heck, they can't even count to four. No wonder it's a weird ruling.

Weird? Or just different? Maybe the NFHS is weird with its "only five automatic first down" rulebook.

Forksref Sun Sep 26, 2004 05:15pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Quote:

Originally posted by Forksref
Quote:

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
I thought the same thing at first, then looked at the author, its canadian ruling. :/


Heck, they can't even count to four. No wonder it's a weird ruling.

Weird? Or just different? Maybe the NFHS is weird with its "only five automatic first down" rulebook.

:) I think a rouge is more than different!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1