First post here

[Bob M.]

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.

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.