Wierd Pass Play

[BulldogMcC]

This play actually happened, I was the U so I was at the LOS watching the blocking but had a perfect view of the QB in the background.

A is 1st and 10 from A's 45. A11 takes the snap under center and drops back to A's 35 and looks to pass. The 5 eligible A players run downfield with the 5 ineligible A players blocking at A's 40 against 4 B rushers. After a few moments, the pass protection breaks down and A11 retreats to A's 25 where he is running sideways and about to be tackled. Without looking and apparently to avoid taking the loss of yardage, he side arms/chucks the ball forward towards the 5 ineligible A players still blocking around A's 40. A77, an ineligible A player catches the ball at A's 40 where he is tackled. At the time of the pass all the eligible A players are 20 yards or more beyond the NZ.

What penalty(s) do you have and what options does the WH give to B?

What we did and what I think we should have done later.

[SJoldguy]

Very interesting.

Illegal touching: 5 yds loss of down.

The QB didn't throw an intentionally incomplete pass so it was not illegal forward pass.

I am very anxious to here what others think about this play/ruling.

[chiefgil]

Since the ball did not cross the LOS, and an Ineligible touched the ball; all you have is Illegal Touching.


5 yards from the spot of the foul.

[Jersey Ref]

Illegal Touching 5 yard penalty and loss of down 2 and 20 from A's 35

[BulldogMcC]

Well, we did what you all called. As the U, I had a flag for illegal touching by an ineligible player at the 40 but the R did not rule it an illegal forward pass. It was not intentionally incomplete to stop the clock or prevent loss of yardage(7-5-2d), but it was thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible A receiver (7-5-2c) so it meets the criteria for an illegal forward pass under the latter definition. The net was that had the ineligible not turned and caught the ball and it instead went incomplete, the R would have had an easy intentional grounding under (7-5-2d) and we would have enforced it from the 25 (2nd and 35 from A's 20), so the ineligible's illegal touching had the effect of moving the spot of enforcement 15 yards in A's favor. We enforced the illegal touching leaving it 2nd and 20 from A's 35, but continue to discuss the action. If it is not an illegal forward pass, it would make sense to teach your QB to dump the ball to an ineligible as a last resort before taking a sack because as long as he tries to catch it, you have illegal touching and the spot of enforcement for the same penalty result (5 yards Loss of Down for both intentional grounding and illegal touching) may be moved forward to the spot of touching by the officials.

FYI, A was down by about 40 points so this is a puzzle question, not a game deciding one, but I think food for thought. B's third string defense was in prevent zone coverage. A was streaking all 5 eligible receivers every play. Typically, an eligible will be in the blocking mass so the illegal touching would be the only call as the ball is thrown to an area with an eligible receiver. This was a rare case with nothing but ineligibles left to block.

[mcrowder]

What, in the Fed rules, makes this particular situation not intentional grounding?

[keystoneref]

This is illegal touching and if your description is accurate it is absolutely intentional grounding. The closest ELIIGIBLE receiver is twenty yards downfield and the QB was trying to save the yardage. In my opinion it has to be intentional grounding.

[Rich]

Originally posted by BulldogMcC
Well, we did what you all called. As the U, I had a flag for illegal touching by an ineligible player at the 40 but the R did not rule it an illegal forward pass. It was not intentionally incomplete to stop the clock or prevent loss of yardage(7-5-2d), but it was thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible A receiver (7-5-2c) so it meets the criteria for an illegal forward pass under the latter definition. The net was that had the ineligible not turned and caught the ball and it instead went incomplete, the R would have had an easy intentional grounding under (7-5-2d) and we would have enforced it from the 25 (2nd and 35 from A's 20), so the ineligible's illegal touching had the effect of moving the spot of enforcement 15 yards in A's favor. We enforced the illegal touching leaving it 2nd and 20 from A's 35, but continue to discuss the action. If it is not an illegal forward pass, it would make sense to teach your QB to dump the ball to an ineligible as a last resort before taking a sack because as long as he tries to catch it, you have illegal touching and the spot of enforcement for the same penalty result (5 yards Loss of Down for both intentional grounding and illegal touching) may be moved forward to the spot of touching by the officials.

FYI, A was down by about 40 points so this is a puzzle question, not a game deciding one, but I think food for thought. B's third string defense was in prevent zone coverage. A was streaking all 5 eligible receivers every play. Typically, an eligible will be in the blocking mass so the illegal touching would be the only call as the ball is thrown to an area with an eligible receiver. This was a rare case with nothing but ineligibles left to block.

This is (1) Illegal touching, and (2) Intentional Grounding. Signal both and decline (disregard) the illegal touching.

--Rich

[SJoldguy]

I agree. my first assessment of only illegal touching was not correct. It is a multiple foul both illegal touching and intentional grounding.

[Bill D]

This is an illegal forward pass under 7-5-2c and an illegal touch. 7-5-2c does not require that the pass be incomplete, although the use of the phrase "intentional grounding" certainly gives that impression. In the "old days", illegal touching was also listed under the definition of illegal forward passes and the enforcement spot was the spot of the pass not the illegal touch. This was changed sometime in the mid 90's and 7-5-13 was added and the enforcement spot was changed to the spot of the touch. I'll admit that I didn't think of this as a possible multiple foul situation but I can see how it could happen.