IS or IP?

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by cougar729

Because 9-6-3 says...

No replaced player or substitute shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play or otherwise participate.

I think you are giving him the benefit of the doubt in the first place if you allow him to get to the sideline and not have IS, when he is still on the field at the snap, especially if he made a half-hearted attempt to get off.

I say that he influences the play by being on the field, near the ball

My question, is what tangible effect or influence did he have on the play? The QB did not alter his throw, the receiver did not change his route, he did not hamper the catch, he did not effect the tackle, no one tried to block him or avoid him to make a block.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The fact that B76 began a (late) pursuit of the runner--even though he never reached him--is enough for me to make this an IP foul. If he continued to his team box and no one reacted to him, I would most likely have left it an IS foul.

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: The fact that B76 began a (late) pursuit of the runner--even though he never reached him--is enough for me to make this an IP foul. If he continued to his team box and no one reacted to him, I would most likely have left it an IS foul.

I agree! And in fact IP was called on this play for that reason. B76’s altered movement toward the receiver was a tangible act that constituted IP. My point is – I see to many posts that use “effect or influence” as an excuse to make it IP. I think there has to be a “reason” or tangible act to use that part of the rule.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by dumbref

I agree! And in fact IP was called on this play for that reason. B76’s altered movement toward the receiver was a tangible act that constituted IP. My point is – I see to many posts that use “effect or influence” as an excuse to make it IP. I think there has to be a “reason” or tangible act to use that part of the rule.

REPLY: That's because the new Federation definition for 'participation' uses the word 'influence.' However...once B76 makes a move toward the runner, I may have no clear idea of whether he influenced the play or not. Maybe, just maybe, he stole the attention of one or more Team A blockers just enough that the runner was tracked down and tackled by his teammate. Who knows for sure? But I know one thing...once B76 began pursuing the runner and put himself into that position where someone can make the judgment that he truly did 'participate,' then he's responsible for the consequences. I'll give every benefit of the doubt to Team A in this situation. The fact that I even had to think about it makes it IP to me.

[OverAndBack]

If he makes a move toward the runner, I'm thinking he's got intent to participate. I know that's not in the rule, but it might be in the spirit of it.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by dumbref

I agree! And in fact IP was called on this play for that reason. B76’s altered movement toward the receiver was a tangible act that constituted IP. My point is – I see to many posts that use “effect or influence” as an excuse to make it IP. I think there has to be a “reason” or tangible act to use that part of the rule.

Maybe I should clarify, then, if I misled you as to the intent of what I said.

If such a player effects the play, or influences the play in any manner, it's IP. If it is POSSIBLE that he affected the play or influenced the play, it's IP. However, it can also be IP even if he did not influence or effect.

I think the burden of proof, if you will, lies on the side of IS. If you are in doubt between the two, it's IP. If you are POSITIVE the player had no effect (as is usually the case in a player who is ALMOST off the field, but not quite, or one that continues to run straight off the field and the play goes the other way, for examples), then you have IS.

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Maybe I should clarify, then, if I misled you as to the intent of what I said.

If such a player effects the play, or influences the play in any manner, it's IP. If it is POSSIBLE that he affected the play or influenced the play, it's IP. However, it can also be IP even if he did not influence or effect.

I think the burden of proof, if you will, lies on the side of IS. If you are in doubt between the two, it's IP. If you are POSITIVE the player had no effect (as is usually the case in a player who is ALMOST off the field, but not quite, or one that continues to run straight off the field and the play goes the other way, for examples), then you have IS.

We are in agreement that it can be IP without effecting the play. This play is a great example – B76’s movement toward the play indicated he was trying to participate but he had no influence or effect on the play itself.

And he could influence the play without actually intending or trying to participate. Say, B76 had not changed his direction to the team box but inadvertently caused the receive to alter his route – certainly that is IP. That is an effect on the play.

Here is where we apparently disagree. I think the burden of proof is on IP. If I don’t see participation or something that actually influences the play – it has to be IS. Is it a judgment call – absolutely. But like the bad analogy of the BIB, unless you actually see something that constitutes the participation or influence, I don’t think IP should be called.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by dumbref

My question, is what tangible effect or influence did he have on the play? The QB did not alter his throw, the receiver did not change his route, he did not hamper the catch, he did not effect the tackle, no one tried to block him or avoid him to make a block.

Are you trying to tell us that pursuing the runner is not participating?