Roughing the passer

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by ljudge
Bob, when is your rules interp meeting? Ours is August 23rd. In the old rule it (perhaps by luck) was clear that an illegal fwd pass could not get RTP but now it can due to the rule change (and lack of changing the wording). I will be raising my hand to Mr. Loper or Masherin.

REPLY: Ours is scheduled for August 30th...but I'm supposed to be helping Ed Camp with an onfield clinic for our new officials that night. There is a 'backp' interp meeting on 9/6, but Mascherin won't be at that one.

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Ours is scheduled for August 30th...but I'm supposed to be helping Ed Camp with an onfield clinic for our new officials that night. There is a 'backp' interp meeting on 9/6, but Mascherin won't be at that one.

Ours is on August 29th @ Colts Neck HS. I think there is one on 8-3-05 at NJSIAA in Robbinsville.

[Forksref]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I agree that there is no distinction in the RTP rules between legal and illegal passes. However, I would be inclined to give the defense a bit more leeway on an IFP from beyond the line or after a change of possession. In those cases, a forward pass would not be anticipated by the defense. All that said, that doesn't give the defense a right to commit a personal foul.

First thing is to start with the definition of a passer: (2-30-11) "A passer is a player who throws a forward pass." Thus, a backward pass is not protected.

Secondly, definition of RTP: (9-4-4) "Defensive players must make a definite effort to avoid charging into a passer who has thrown the ball from in or behind the neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown." Thus, the protection is for a passer operating in or behind the neutral zone. It doesn't require that the pass be legal, only that it is from in or behind the neutral zone. Therefore, an illegal pass (and legal pass) from in or behind the neutral zone is protected, but an illegal pass thrown from beyond the neutral zone is not protected. (according to 9-4-4) So, even with the new rule prohibiting the second pass, the second passer is afforded protection if the pass is from in or behind the neutral zone.

(Sorry about the wordiness.)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Forksref

[i]First thing is to start with the definition of a passer: (2-30-11) "A passer is a player who throws a forward pass." Thus, a backward pass is not protected.

Secondly, definition of RTP: (9-4-4) "Defensive players must make a definite effort to avoid charging into a passer who has thrown the ball from in or behind the neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown." Thus, the protection is for a passer operating in or behind the neutral zone. It doesn't require that the pass be legal, only that it is from in or behind the neutral zone. Therefore, an illegal pass (and legal pass) from in or behind the neutral zone is protected, but an illegal pass thrown from beyond the neutral zone is not protected. (according to 9-4-4) So, even with the new rule prohibiting the second pass, the second passer is afforded protection if the pass is from in or behind the neutral zone.

(Sorry about the wordiness.)

Forksref,
That does make the most sense explained that way. It's just when they (NFHS) change the rules they seem to forget how it involves every other phase of the game.

[mikesears]

Last year before the rule change, how would it be ruled if the passer intentionally grounded the ball and was subsequently contacted in such a way that roughing would have been called?

This isn't a new issue this year because there were still illegal forward passes from in or behind the neutral zone.

Originally posted by mikesears
Last year before the rule change, how would it be ruled if the passer intentionally grounded the ball and was subsequently contacted in such a way that roughing would have been called?

This isn't a new issue this year because there were still illegal forward passes from in or behind the neutral zone.

Mike,
You are right but it's either RTP or IPC....right?

[ljudge]

The way Mike has described the play it depends if the ball is still airborne. Since he used the words intentional grounding I would think the ball would hit the ground in about .2 seconds which would make it a dead ball foul.