Ball State/Toledo ineligible reciever play
 

Just wondering if anybody caught the play during the Ball State vs. Toledo game where Toledo had its offensive tackle fake a block as the play rolled away from his side and then drift back to catch what initially looked like a pass to me and apparently the linesman as well.

The guys calling the game tried to come up with every explanation for the way it was called and why it was reviewed except for the fact that it was a backward pass. They started by suggesting that it was a "tackle eligible" play, but the flag was because he didn't report. Then they tried to say that it shouldn't matter as long as he was uncovered on the end of the line. Replay, however, showed that the WR was on the line thus they said he was ineligible because of that. Then they said the play was reviewed because of a fumble, however, the play was ruled down originally so that couldn't be the reason for the review (although these guys swore up and down that the ball was going to go over to Ball St.) I couldn't believe the utter rule book illiteracy that these guys were preaching.

I know announcers aren't experts in rules matters, but this was sad by announcer standards.

what exactly happened on the play?

Toledo ball 1 and 10 on roughly the Ball St. 11-12 yard line. Toledo's QB took the snap and rolled to his right. While this was going on the LT (wearing #79 and not on the end of the line) dropped back as if pass blocking but once the defenders followed the QB rolling to the right, he dropped back to about the 14 yard line and the QB threw it back to his side from about the 13. Really close but the ball definitely traveled backward. Initially it looked to be a forward pass and the linesman flagged it as 79 is obviously ineligible by number (and position in this play). Following the catch 79 ran about 6-7 yards for an eventual net of 3 or so yards on the play where he fumbled but was either ruled down before the fumble or recovered his own fumble. At the conclusion of all this, the play was reviewed and the flag was waived off as the pass was backward.

The announcers, however, were completely at a loss for how to consider this play with regard to the rules and not their imaginary way things should be.

(disclaimer: the yard lines and distances are what I can remember about 2 hours after the fact now that I'm at work. If they are off a little it doesn't really change the basic jist of the play)

The funny part was they kept going on and on and it kept getting worse and worse. I was thinking, this guys is more foot in the mouth than Joe Thiesman.
My favorite part was the reporting eligible, but not needing to since he was on the end of the line even with a number 79 on his back.


Mechanics? The linejudge threw the flag prob in shock that a pass was thrown to the tackle. I did not see if the linesman came in to help with forward or backward or not. Did the linejudge throw the flag, think about it, then determine himself that it was a backward pass. I believe it to be his call on passes towards him. They had one receiver on his side, so his key would have been the back in the backfield and the tackle!

I did see the play, and the description above is accurate. The L did toss his flag from the NZ to A's backfield. He reported to the R what he had, but did not use any signals, so we don't know what he reported. The R waved the flag off saying there was no foul on the play for an illegal pass. I think R used the term illegal pass.

The play was then reviewed, but we don't know if the review was for the pass (forward or backward?) or for the loose ball at the end of the play being a fumble or not, or who may have gained possession.

The TV announcers were in the middle of a telephone conversation with ESPN's Reece Davis about an upcoming game at Miami (OH). So not only do they not know the rules, but they were distracted in explaining what they did not know.

So not only do they not know the rules, but they were distracted in explaining what they did not know.

Great definition! :D I like it!

As for the announcers, I have said "It is better to keep mouth shut and thought ignorant, than to open mouth and remove all doubt!"

I've suggested before that TV or Radio should have an official in the booth as a resource. They wouldn't even have to say who it was or put him on camera, just use him as a resource.

At least they should be able to "phone a friend." :)

I've long wondered why this play isn't seen more, especially since liberal rules re use of hands in blocking were adopted, which often results in an OT's riding a DE a long way toward A's end line.

Robert