It is not always a safety. Read my comment above yours. There are at least two ways that it can be other that a safety. It will be a safety if the pass is incomplete.

[Edited by SJoldguy on Oct 8th, 2004 at 10:58 AM]

If they accept the other foul, where are you gonna measure from ? The end of the run. Where was that?

Our crew had almost the identical play a few weeks ago. A was in punt formation and the punter bobbled the snap in the EZ, the punter took off running, B grabs him, spins him around and he heaves the ball downfield before falling over.

We had intentional grounding and ineligible receiver's, a multiple foul. I gave them the choice of ineligibles, which was 5 yards and replay 4th, intentional grounding for a safety or declining both and their ball 1st and 10 at A's 8. B took the safety.

In light of this post were these the correct choices?

Throwing an illegal forward pass from behind your own goal line is the same as being tackled there - iy's a run that ended in the end zone.

Now I'm not even sure if the illegal touching should be there as this wasn't a legal pass and eligibility requirements apply only to legal passes. I'll have to ponder this now.

For kdf5 why did the defense get an option for the ball on the 8? Where was he when he intentionally grounded the pass? The spot of the intentional grounding is the end of the run.

That's why I'm asking, in light of the multiple foul situation. 10-2-3 says B can, when there are 2 or more live ball fouls by the same team,...the offended captain may choose which one it shall be, or he may decline all penalties.

If he can decline all penalties then wouldn't B get to take the ball at the previous spot on downs based only on the fact that there are multiple fouls on A? Which would take precedent here: 10-2-3 or 10-5-4?

If B declines all fouls, the ball is dead behind the goal line.

I believe 10-5-4 is the over-riding ruling here. It goes aganst the Fed way of thinking to have their own foul help them.

I'm still not convinced that you can have illegal touching on an illegal pass. It says eligibility rules apply only on legal passes, and eligibility is tied directly to illegal touching. Then again, on any other pat of the field, if the QB threw to an ineligible while under pressure, we'd flag the IT only probably.

A connundrum.

REPLY: I believe that the <u>only</u> foul in your scenario is an illegal forward pass which will result in a safety whether or not B accepts the penalty (I'm assuming he threw the ball from his endzone.) You cannot have any ineligibles downfield since eligibility rules only apply to <u>legal</u> forward passes. (See <b>NF 7-5-6</b>: <i>"Pass eligibility rules apply only to a legal forward pass.</i>")

there are 2 fouls on this play. Illegal forward pass and illegal touching by ineligible. 7.5.10 table shows illegal touching only applies to a forward pass not a legal forward pass. Also in the other posting if b intercepts and scores and there is holding in the end zone by a, the holding would have to occur after the interception in order to accept the penalty and the score.

Therefore b can accept either penalty.

Wow, lots of good thoughts in this thread. Here's what I've gotten out of it so far:

[still NF rules]
<ul><li>Can you have ineligibles downfield on an illegal forward pass?
<li>Can you have illegal touching on an illegal forward pass?</ul>I'm going to agree with Bob M. and say no, since eligibility restrictions apply only to legal forward passes. I've a hunch the rulemakers "want" illegal touching to still be possible, but the rules are definitely not written that way.

The question that I don't have a definitive answer for yet is this:
<ul><li>If an illegal pass is thrown from the end zone and falls incomplete, can you ever have anything other than a safety?</ul>Right now, my answer on this is also no. I read 10-5-4 as making it an automatic safety no matter what the disposition of the penalty. Also, since this is a running play, and the end of the run is where the pass was thrown, the basic spot is in the end zone. Even if the foul for an illegal pass is declined, the basic spot for other fouls is in the end zone.

Now, if you have a foul like illegal motion that's simultaneous with the snap (or through some bizarre twist, the play ends with a touchback), the second argument doesn't hold up. But I still think you end up with a safety.

Bob M: You are right. This was a play that happened several weeks ago and I never gave it much thought until this thread. After posting, I then decided to read the rule book (duh!) and the only foul you can have is the IG as you can't have ineligibles downfield on a running play which is what the IG is. Our crew learned some good lessons from this post and that play.

My question though is this: Say you had IG on A from in the endzone and holding on A at A's 10 (in my example or this thread we have a multiple foul right?). Does 10-2-3 apply where both penalties can be declined or does 10-5-4 exclude 10-2-3 by rule and make the IG an automatic safety in this scenario.

[Edited by kdf5 on Oct 11th, 2004 at 12:05 PM]

illegal touching has nothing to do with ineligbles down field. It only applies to an ineligible who started the down who tries to touch or catch a forward pass in or behind the line of scrimmage

REPLY: I said nothing about ineligibles <u>downfield</u>. My comment was about the whole concept of eligibility. Think of it this way...eligibility applies to illegal forward passes in exactly the same way as it applies to backward passes. That is, it doesn't apply at all! Yes, you do need to consider eligibility to determine if a forward pass might be illegal in the first place, but once having determined that the pass is illegal, the concept of 'eligibility' is moot when you're talking about a player muffing, batting, or touching the illegal forward pass.