IS or IP?

[dumbref]

Saw a play Friday night I’ll try to describe. A is in a no huddle hurry up offense with the LOS about A’s 40. R maintained his rhythm in giving the ready. Just before R gave the ready, B sends 2 subs onto the field. The first substitution was made with no problem. The second had to go to the far side of the field, notified his player (B76) who began leaving the field immediately but with no sense of urgency. The ball is snapped with B76 near the inbound marks nearest his team box on A’s 45. A throws a completed pass near the 50 on B’s sideline with B76 still ambling along at A’s 45 about the top of the numbers now. B76, seeing the pass completion, actually pauses for a half a second, then changes direction and begins running toward the receiver. B27 makes the tackle at the 50 and B76 pulls up, then continues to the team box. B76 did not hit anyone or hinder anyone’s path to the ball but was in a position to make the tackle had B27 not.

IS (dead or live) or IP? What would you call?

[MJT]

Just because he does not make the tackle or throw a block does not mean he did not participate. If hinders an opponent or draws coverage it is also IP. If ANY team A player even went out of his way to maybe block B76, he should be considered to have participated as his actions caused a reaction (drawing coverage) by the other team. Since you cannot necessarily see all of A's actions, since he changes his direction and runs toward the receiver, I think you ding him with DP. It would have been IS if he paused, but kept going towards his sideline.

It is definitly not a dead ball IS. You should call that on the defense if they none of the 12 are trying to get off the field just before the snap, but not if someone is trying to get off the field.

[waltjp]

Sounds like IP to me. He moved toward the play.

[mcrowder]

It was IP BEFORE he moved toward the play, and then became super-secret-double-probation IP after he moved.

IS can only be applied in a situation like this if the player in question had NO POSSIBLE EFFECT on the play.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

It was IP BEFORE he moved toward the play, and then became super-secret-double-probation IP after he moved.

IS can only be applied in a situation like this if the player in question had NO POSSIBLE EFFECT on the play.

Interesting to see a toga with the number 76 on it. Go Deltas!

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

It was IP BEFORE he moved toward the play, and then became super-secret-double-probation IP after he moved.

IS can only be applied in a situation like this if the player in question had NO POSSIBLE EFFECT on the play.

Would you call a block in the back because he possibly blocked in the back. Why should we call IP because he possibly had an effect on the play? Shouldn’t we have to see what that effect was before calling IP?

[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

[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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by dumbref

Would you call a block in the back because he possibly blocked in the back. Why should we call IP because he possibly had an effect on the play? Shouldn’t we have to see what that effect was before calling IP?

Bad analogy. No, I would not call BIB because he possibly BIB'd.

But the penalty is not called Illegal Having An Affect On The Play. It's called Illegal Participation. And if there is ANY chance that this player affected ANY PART of the play, then he has participated in that play, thus Illegal participation.

[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?

[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.