The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 30, 2006, 10:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10
Enforcement of Illegal Touching By an OL

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
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 30, 2006, 11:32pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by foureyesallbad
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 30, 2006, 11:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10
Why no call?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 30, 2006, 11:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 401
Send a message via Yahoo to yankeesfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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).
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 30, 2006, 11:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10
How about the enforcement?

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. :-)

Last edited by foureyesallbad; Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 12:00am.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 12:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 401
Send a message via Yahoo to yankeesfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
yes, your enforcement would of been correct.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 12:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10
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. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 01:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fayette Missouri
Posts: 100
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?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 07:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 09:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 22
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?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 09:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 22
Sorry. Re-read opening post and realized wrong direction.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 31, 2006, 09:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 401
Send a message via Yahoo to yankeesfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middleman
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illegal Touching foureyesallbad Football 5 Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:05am
Possible illegal touching situation kentref Football 4 Wed Sep 21, 2005 01:51pm
Illegal touching Tundra Ref Football 4 Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:52am
Illegal Touching and OPI mikesears Football 26 Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:02pm
Illegal touching: NF and NCAA. Mike Simonds Football 4 Fri Oct 11, 2002 01:26pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1