The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 04, 2005, 12:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Clinton Township, NJ
Posts: 2,065
Quote:
Originally posted by ljudge
Interesting Bob. So is what you're saying is that 7.5.13 doesn't apply unless 7.5.6 is met first?
REPLY: That's my opinion though I've never seen it in any case book play. Remember that an illegal forward pass is part of a running play. No such thing as 'eligibility' on running plays that I've ever heard of. However, the Fed does put itself into a Catch-22 argument by saying it's an illegal forward pass when a pass is "...intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver." and then later on say that "Pass eligibility rules apply only to a legal forward pass..." Sort of implies that you may need eligibility to judge whether or not a pass is legal, but that if it's illegal, eligibility doesn't apply.Huh? 2

Probably would have been better if in 7-5-2c they said it's an illegal forward pass if it's "...intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an offensive player who is on the ends of their scrimmage line or legally behind the line (possible total of six) and is numbered 1-49 or 80-99. ." That way they could have avoided the Catch-22 by not using the word 'eligible' when defining an illegal forward pass.

But this is the Federation we're talking about.
__________________
Bob M.
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1