Response from Referee Magazine

[kd0254]

A member of our crew sent out a little email last week with reference to the plays in the March 2007 issue. The jist of what I see problem with is . . . .

Ineligible A7 is hit in the back with the ball at team A's 13 yardline after A1 passes it forward from the A8 towards him. I see illegal touching, but it is the off season so I'll wait for some replies.

The best part is the response my crew member got from referee magazine.

"The first part says A ineligibles can't touch a pass unless it's been touched by B first. In the plays, in (a) A is hit in the back. He didn't touch the ball; it touched him. No foul. In (b) and (c) he attempted to catch the ball; he touched it. That's a foul."

He didn't touch the ball, it touched him, that's a new one to me. We can make the distinction between touch, muff, catch, but Mr. Stern's statement seems very incorrect. Comments?

[mcrowder]

1 comment. NEVER trust referee magazine.

[MJT]

They have many good plays, but will have mistakes sometimes. They will come out in a later issue and put a correction. Doesn't do much for us at the time, but it keeps us on our toes to make sure their answers are correct.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by kd0254

A member of our crew sent out a little email last week with reference to the plays in the March 200 issue. The jist of what I see problem with is . . . .

Ineligible A7 is hit in the back with the ball at team A's 13 yardline after A1 passes it forward from the A8 towards him. I see illegal touching, but it is the off season so I'll wait for some replies.

The best part is the response my crew member got from referee magazine.

"The first part says A ineligibles can't touch a pass unless it's been touched by B first. In the plays, in (a) A is hit in the back. He didn't touch the ball; it touched him. No foul. In (b) and (c) he attempted to catch the ball; he touched it. That's a foul."

He didn't touch the ball, it touched him, thats a new one to me. We can make the distinction between touch, muff, catch, but Mr. Sterns statement seems very incorrect. Comments?

This was a change in Federation rules last year. A pass that contacts (as opposed to him contacting the pass) an ineligible receiver is not a foul. There has to be intent on behalf of any ineligble receiver to have illegal touching. If the pass hits him in the back, there is no intent by the ineligible receiver to touch the ball. See the following case book play:

7.5.13 Situation A:	Ineligible receiver A2 is behind, in or beyond 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).

It looks like Referee Mag took the play directly from the case book. Overall, Referee Mag does a pretty darned good job. Do they make mistakes? Yes. Should they make mistakes? No. But I think you can learn a lot from their publication. Way more than by not reading it. This is a perfect example. Their ruling doesn't seem right to you. You post it here. Not only does it encourage you to dig into the rule books a little (which I assume you and your crew members did prior to sending them an email), it encourages all those who read to get into their books as well. That's a good thing.

BTW- Correct me if I am wrong but this ruling looks to be true for NCAA as well. 7-3-11 says that the touching must be intentional for it to be illegal touching. Agreed?

[TXMike]

Yep, NCAA requires that touching be intentional in this case in order to be a foul. There are other cases where a ball can be accidentally touched and there be a problem but in the case of a pass hitting an ineligible, if not intentional by the ineligible, not a foul.

[ljudge]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

BTW- Correct me if I am wrong but this ruling looks to be true for NCAA as well. 7-3-11 says that the touching must be intentional for it to be illegal touching. Agreed?

As I'm reading thru this post I'm thinking "ok, what about NCAA?"

I thought this was illegal touching but from what I read in 7-3-11 it appears as though the codes agree, at least in part.

This 'originally ineligible' phrase is tripping me up again. The only way for an ineligible (at the snap) to become eligible is for an opponent to touch a pass. Correct?

So, what is the significance of "originally" there for?

[grantsrc]

I guess they're getting at "lineman".

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by ljudge

As I'm reading thru this post I'm thinking "ok, what about NCAA?"

I thought this was illegal touching but from what I read in 7-3-11 it appears as though the codes agree, at least in part.

This 'originally ineligible' phrase is tripping me up again. The only way for an ineligible (at the snap) to become eligible is for an opponent to touch a pass. Correct?

So, what is the significance of "originally" there for?

It is there because an originally ELIGIBLE receiver can become ineligible during the play, i.e. he goes out of bounds voluntarily. If the word "originally" was not there then we would have a conflict in the rules. That is because if the originally eligible becomes ineligible and then touches the pass , the only penalty is loss of down at previous spot.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by TXMike

It is there because an originally ELIGIBLE receiver can become ineligible during the play, i.e. he goes out of bounds voluntarily. If the word "originally" was not there then we would have a conflict in the rules. That is because if the originally eligible becomes ineligible and then touches the pass , the only penalty is loss of down at previous spot.

Mike,
This is just nit picking here, but, in the NFHS (I know you guys in TX don't use it), there is a provision, somewhere, off the top of my head I am not sure where, that says eligible receivers at the snap remain eligible for the entire down.....however it is illegal to go out of bounds and come back in and be the first to touch the ball

[grantsrc]

In NFHS, if a receiver goes out voluntarily and comes back, isn't it illegal participation if they come back?

Edit: I knew I should've clarified that better!

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

If a receiver goes out voluntarily and comes back, isn't it illegal participation if they come back?

Not in NCAA. I don't have a clue about Fed.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

In NFHS, if a receiver goes out voluntarily and comes back, isn't it illegal participation if they come back?

Edit: I knew I should've clarified that better!

Correct for NFHS, but not a problem in NCAA unless this receiver is first to touch a forward pass.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Theisey

Correct for NFHS, but not a problem in NCAA unless this receiver is first to touch a forward pass.

If he is the first, it is illegal touching and not participation, right?

[HLin NC]

however it is illegal to go out of bounds and come back in and be the first to touch the ball

Being first to touch the pass has nothing to do with Fed rules. An eligible player does remain eligible for the entire down. If he goes out of bounds voluntarily and returns, it is illegal participation enforced from the spot where he reenters the field. If he is forced out, he must return at the first opportunity.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

If he is the first, it is illegal touching and not participation, right?

For NCAA rules, that is correct. Nothing more than a LOD for the penalty.