Weird situation.
If a quarterback pitches a backwards pass to the wide reciever (where the wide receiver now becomes the passer) and he runs up to the line of scrimmage and throws a pass. Then a defensive lineman nails him. Do we have roughing the passer? When does the quarter back cease from being the passer? What is meant by becoming part of the play (as far as not getting protection)?

At all levels, anyone who throws a forward pass is a passer and as such, anyone who throws a forward pass is protected by the roughing the passer rules. Roughing is a judgment call all the way.

By high school (FED) rules, defenders must make an effort to avoiding charging into a passer who has clearly thrown a forward pass.

You may have roughing the passer. The defensive player has to make a definitive effort to avoid contact with the passer after the ball has been thrown from in or behind the neutral zone (9-4-4). The player in this case, the wide receiver, becomes a passer when he throws a forward pass, and he continues to be a passer until the pass is over or he moves to participate in the play (2-30-11). The official must also judge whether the defensive player could have known that the pass was going to be attempted. I would have to give some lattitude in this situation in regards to roughing.

In this situation, the quarterback is never considered to be a passer as he throws a backward pass.

If the passer is standing still or fading back, then he is not considered to be participating in the play, and he is afforded protection (9-4-4).

Something else to consider. All forward passes are not legal. So, if a player tried to throw a forward pass after change of possession he would NOT be protected. Also, if a player tried to throw a forward pass after crossing the line of scrimmage, also no protection.

However, you really can't say that roughing the passer restrictions are ONLY provided for legal passes.

Consider this situation. QB throws a forward pass to the receiver behind the line. The the receiver attempts another forward pass, the 2nd one is illegal. However, if the receiver is still behind the line he STILL has protection against roughing the passer.

Would you all agree with that?

That is correct. You can only have roughing the passer on fouls that occur against any passer who threw the ball from in or behind the neutral zone. You can not have roughing the passer on passes thrown beyond the neutral zone or after a change of possession. However personal fouls can occur anywhere on the field at any time.

Just because you can't call it roughing doesn't always make it legal.

2-30-11 says a passer is a player who throws a forward pass
so the quarterback will not have protection in this instances.

however, if there are two forward passes. the rule does not specify that the pass has to be legal.,

Quite possibly after today (the FB interp meeting in Indy) that little rule problem screwup will be taken care of.

Rule 9-4-3 could be interesting if they don't phrase the wording. It's clear that it must be a legal forward pass for having a true RTP foul (as you said you could always have illegal personal contact).

Consider in 2004:

The 2nd passer throws the ball 1-yard beyond the NZ we all agree you can't have RTP as per 9-4-3. If he happened to be in or behind the NZ you can definitely have it.

Consider in 2005:

A 2nd pass is illegal. Now what if the 2nd passer throws the pass in or behind the NZ. What do you have? I'm not sure you can have RTP unless they addressed the wording in 9-4-3. I haven't received my 2005 rules book yet.

9-4-3 from 2004 is now 9-4-4 in 2005, but the wording is exactly the same.

The rule does not say anything about the pass being legal or not, so I think you would have RTP along with Illegal Forward Pass. Double fouls, replay down.

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.

Something else to consider in this play. If the receiver runs to the line of scrimmage like he's going to run the ball you have to make an allowance for the fact that the defense may not know he was going to be a pass.

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.

I just can't see calling it RTP if they have IFP. I understand why you are saying this but...just doesn't seem right. I guess either way you look at it RTP or IPC...It still off sets...

I just realized how stupid my question was. I never thought of this being a double foul and just concentrating on the PF aspect. What makes it worse is tpaul said that directly in front of my post. My bad....again!

At the risk of looking silly here, I have it correct going into the season.

That's what it's all about! Getting it right on the field...LOL

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.

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

Quote:

[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.

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?

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.