From April's Referee Magazine...

[Bob M.]

In the April 2005 edition of Referee Magazine, Jeffrey Stern goes over the 2005 Federation Rule changes. Obviously, the change getting most of his attention was the new prohibition against throwing more than one forward pass during a down. Here is one play he uses to illustrate the change along with his ruling:

PLAY: Fourth and 10 from A’s 5. A1 drops into his endzone and throws a legal forward pass. Blitzing linebacker B2 deflects the pass, which is caught by A1. Still in his own endzone, A1 throws a forward pass to eligible A3 that is (a) incomplete, or (b) is complete to A3 at Team A’s 27 yardline. RULING: In (a), team B may decline the penalty and begin a new series on team A’s five yardline, or accept the penalty to score a safety. In (b), because the foul occurred in the endzone, B will score a safety if it accepts the penalty. Declining the penalty would result in a new series for team A.

Comments anyone?? Remember, this was a Federation article. NCAA and Fed rules are different, so make sure your comments are accompanied by which code you're using.

[Warrenkicker]

NF
It seems that in (a) an illegal forward pass, which I believe a second forward pass would be classified as, from the endzone should be a safety either way.

ART. 2 An illegal forward pass is a foul. The illegal forward passes are:
a. A pass after team possession has changed during the down.
b. A pass from beyond the neutral zone.
c. A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver.
d. A pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time.
EXCEPTION: It is legal to conserve time by intentionally throwing the ball forward to the ground immediately after receiving a direct hand-to-hand snap.
ART. 3 If the penalty for an illegal forward pass is accepted, measurement is from the spot of such forward pass. If the offended team declines the distance penalty, it has the choice of having the down counted at the spot of the illegal incomplete forward pass or (if the illegal forward pass is caught or intercepted) of having the ball put in play as determined by the action which followed the catch.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: My thoughts precisely. I'm also assuming that the second pass would be an illegal forward pass. It is in NCAA and Stern's article says it's that way for Fed as well. This would mean that (a) should be a safety regardless of acceptance or declination of the penalty.

By the way, he would be correct in NCAA rules. B could take the two points (safety) or could choose to take the ball at the previous spot--just like if it were an incomplete legal forward pass.

[Mike Simonds]

Bob, in part b, B would have the option correct?

They can take the results of the play or accept the penalty and score the safety.

I have to find the rule reference to support my answer to part b.

The post office is slow over here. I only have my January issue right now.

[KWH]

I haven't got the time to get involved right now, however,
NFHS Rule 8-5-2c and NFHS Casebook 8.5.2 SITUATION D
BOTH need to be included in this conversation...

[Warrenkicker]

But in the Case Book ruling the foul was not an illegal forward pass.

8.5.2 SITUATION D: Fourth and 15 for A from its own 8-yard line. A1 is in punt formation and receives the snap in his end zone, but fumbles the ball. A1 quickly recovers and throws a forward pass to ineligible A2, who is also in the end zone. A2 muffs the ball and it falls incomplete. RULING: If B accepts the penalty for A2's illegal touching, it results in a safety. If B declines the penalty for the foul by A2, the result is B's ball first and goal from A's 8-yard line. (5-1-3c; 7-5-13 Pen; 8-5-2c; 10-5-6)

It was illegal touching. So this was a legal pass and the spot of enforcement is not the end of the run. It was ruled illegal touching and even though that would be a spot foul it can be declined without a safety being awarded.

8-5-2c was the basic point of my arguement against the example above.

8-5-2c. A player on offense commits any foul for which the penalty is accepted and enforcement is from a spot in his end zone; or throws an illegal forward pass from his end zone and the penalty is declined in a situation which leaves him in possession at the spot of the illegal pass and with the ball having been forced into the end zone by the passing team.

[KWH]

OK, so...
In the Casebook play 8.5.2 SITUATION D,
Why is Team A not "technically" guilty of multiple fouls?

1) Illegal Forward Pass, 7-5-2c - A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive reciever.
2) Illegal Touching, 7-5-13 - An ineligible A player has illegally touched a forward pass if he bats, muffs, or catches a forward pass while he is in or behind the neutral zone, unless the pass has been touched by B.

Or,
Is the NFHS saying that the Illegal Touching lets Team A off the hook for (or trumps) the Illegal Forward Pass? Because, if if does not let them off the hook, AND B declines both penalties, is not Team A left in possession of the ball at the end of the run in their own end zone, (a.k.a. a safety)?

Or,
Have I completely missed the boat on this one?

[KWH]

BOB M???
Where are you???

Masucci, I need some help here, throw me a rope, I'm drowning...

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by KWH
BOB M???
Where are you???

Masucci, I need some help here, throw me a rope, I'm drowning...

REPLY: Kevin...here you go...

I don't think that the illegal touching trumps the IFP. I believe it's the other way around. Once it's determined that the pass is illegal, you can't have illegal touching. By definition, illegal touching must be committed by an ineligible. But eligibility only applies to legal forward passes. So I think in the case book play, the R must have had no reason to flag an IFP; therefore the touching was illegal. If, however, the R ruled that the QB dumped the ball and flagged it, then any subsequent flag for illegal touching would need to be picked up. So, this case book play doesn't really illustrate the same thing that I think Referee mag got wrong. In (a), it's a safety regardless of whether B accepts or declines the penalty for the IFP foul.

[KWH]

Thanks Bob, your rationale, (as always) is appreciated and always makes sense.




[Edited by KWH on Mar 19th, 2005 at 01:51 AM]

[ljudge]

Have any of you inquiried about this ruling with Jeff Stern?

[Warrenkicker]

Originally posted by KWH
OK, so...
In the Casebook play 8.5.2 SITUATION D,
Why is Team A not "technically" guilty of multiple fouls?

1) Illegal Forward Pass, 7-5-2c - A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive reciever.
2) Illegal Touching, 7-5-13 - An ineligible A player has illegally touched a forward pass if he bats, muffs, or catches a forward pass while he is in or behind the neutral zone, unless the pass has been touched by B.

There is no proof in the description that there wasn't an eligible receiver in the area. So what we should rule on here is again based on what we assume. I would agree that you can't have illegal touching if there is no receiver in the area. The pass was illegal before it was touched.

It might be similar to having an offensive blocker hold a defender by the facemask. You aren't going to call holding and facefask.