Roughing the passer

michaelpr · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 08:02am

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)?

mikesears · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 08:18am

Quote:

Originally posted by michaelpr
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.

Topshelf · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 08:33am

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).

DrMooreReferee · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 08:45am

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?

Warrenkicker · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 10:26am

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.

michaelpr · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 10:58am

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.,

Theisey · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 11:14am

Quote:

Originally posted by michaelpr
...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.

ljudge · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 11:19am

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.

Topshelf · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 11:40am

Quote:

Originally posted by ljudge
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.

Bob M. · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 12:18pm

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.

waltjp · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 12:31pm

Quote:

Originally posted by michaelpr
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)?

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.

ljudge · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 06:09pm

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.

#13 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 07:25pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Topshelf

Quote:

Originally posted by ljudge
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.

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...

ljudge · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 07:48pm

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.

#15 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 19, 2005, 07:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ljudge
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