Enforcement of Illegal Touching By an OL

Rich

foureyesallbad wrote
Last week, I had to white hat a jr. high game (NFHS).

A's ball 1st and 10 at their 40. QB is in trouble and dumps it off to A60 (hits him in the back) at A's 36. The penalty is enforced from the spot of illegal touching A's 36) since it happened behind the basic spot, which is the previous spot (A's 40) on a loose ball play. So now it's A's ball 2nd and 19 (loss of down) from their 31.

I had a coach yelling that he was an official for 10 years and that was the wrong enforcement. I just needed to confirm this.

If you can, please help. I'm new at this and I live in fear that I am missing something.

Thanks in advance.
4eyesallbad

If it wasn't a muff, catch, or a bat, it's nothing. No penalty.

foureyesallbad

Is it because A60 made no attempt on the ball? I don't think that matters. He touched it or at least it touched him and he's ineligible.

yankeesfan

foureyesallbad wrote
Is it because A60 made no attempt on the ball? I don't think that matters. He touched it or at least it touched him and he's ineligible.

rich is correct. trust what he tells you. here it is:

7.5.13 SITUATION A: Ineligible receiver A2 is in or behind his neutral zone when a forward pass by A1: (a) accidentally strikes him in the back; or (b) is muffed by him; or (c) is caught by him. RULING: In (a), there is no infraction, but in (b) and (c), it is illegal touching. The acts in both (b) and (c) are intentional and not accidental as in (a).

foureyesallbad

Ok, so I biffed the interpretation of illegal touching. Let's say it was either (b) or (c) as yankeesfan pointed out. Would the enforcement be correct?

The coach didn't mention anything about situation (a) not being a penalty. He was upset at the enforcement of what he thought, like me, was a penalty.

So would my enforcement be correct if it were muffed or caught by A60?

Thanks.

Thank you Rich and Yankeesfan. I had no idea there was any distinction between intent by the lineman the ball touched. You just saved me an even bigger butt-chewing down the road. :-)

yankeesfan

foureyesallbad wrote
Ok, so I biffed the interpretation of illegal touching. Let's say it was either (b) or (c) as yankeesfan pointed out. Would the enforcement be correct?

The coach didn't mention anything about situation (a) not being a penalty. He was upset at the enforcement of what he thought, like me, was a penalty.

So would my enforcement be correct if it were muffed or caught by A60?

Thanks.

yes, your enforcement would of been correct.

foureyesallbad

Thank you Rich and Yankeesfan. I had no idea there was any distinction between intent by the lineman the ball touched. You just saved me an even bigger butt-chewing down the road. :-)

cougar729

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but this seems like a pretty simple rule to understand and interperate. I know you said it was a JH game which is a good place to learn and gain experience, but was there no one else on the game that could help you and let you know that it was not a penalty?

Middleman

Rich Fronheiser wrote
If it wasn't a muff, catch, or a bat, it's nothing. No penalty.

4eyes said "A's ball 1st and 10 at their 40. QB is in trouble and dumps it off to A60 (hits him in the back) at A's 36."

I agree it is not illegal touching by the ineligible, but it could have been intentional grounding.

TNStripes

What about the lineman being four yards down field on the play? The rule states "in or behind his neutral zone". What do you have?

TNStripes

Sorry. Re-read opening post and realized wrong direction.:confused:

yankeesfan

Middleman wrote
4eyes said "A's ball 1st and 10 at their 40. QB is in trouble and dumps it off to A60 (hits him in the back) at A's 36."

I agree it is not illegal touching by the ineligible, but it could have been intentional grounding.

this is very true. i guess you had to be there to see the play. great point.