Pick your poison
 

Strange play that happened to one of our guys recently.

Third down and ten at A's 10. A1 drops back to pass under a heavy rush into the end zone, where, under duress and to avoid a sack (as determined by the Referee) he shovels a forward pass to A#80 who was ineligible because he was covered by an end (A#80 was an extra tackle held in to help with pass blocking.) A#80 catches the ball at the A 5 yard line and is tackled at A's 10. What foul (if any) and spot of enforcement.

Illegal touching by A80. 5 yard penalty plus loss of down so it would be 4th & 18 from A's 2 and a half.

Since 80 is normally an eligible number, the QB was under pressure and, for all we know maybe 80 wasn't supposed to be covered on that play, I would not consider intentional grounding.

Agree

Wow Pat, too bad the guys Tuesday didn't get it this quick.:eek::):D

My first question is how can A1 drop back when he had to be 7 yards back. With #80 in the tackle position the numbering exception would have to apply unless there was a 50-79 on the other end of the line.

Not necessarily. There may have been 8 (Or more) on the LOS -- Still legal....

Opi
 

We did this scenerio for a pregame last year...we thought for sure that was OPI...until we remembered they changed that a few years back to illegal touching...right on!
cheers,
tro

Pat changed it up a little, according to the crew that had the play, #74 caught the pass.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Two fouls. Deliberate grounding and illegal forward pass. B will pick one and we go from there.

1. DG: next down from point of origin of pass. Turnover on downs. Gives Team B 1D/G @ POP.
2. Decline both: turnover on downs. Gives Team B 1D/G @ A-10.
3. IFP: 10 yards from PLS (previous spot) and repeat the down. Gives Team A 3D/15 @ A-5.

Even if there wasn't another eligible receiver/back around him?

The rule says it's illegal if the QB intentionally thrown into an area where there is no eligible receiver. Based on the word "intentional", we have to judge intent. Since the player had a number that would normally indicate that he is eligible, I would give the QB the benefit of the doubt. Like I said, maybe 80 was supposed to be eligible on the play and was covered up by mistake. Maybe the QB forgot that 80 was lined up inside on this play. Either way, there is a pretty good chance that his throw to an ineligible was unintentional. Now if he throws to 70, then I can assume he's just dumping off.

Jim,

Thanks...just trying to learn all the ins and outs and wanting to make sure I understand everything.

Canadian Ruling con'd
 

Canadian Ruling, con'd

Since the QB was in the end zone, the intentional grounding result would be a safety.

And not that it affects the result, but #3 above would be an ineligible receiver foul, not an illegal forward pass (same signal though!)

Yeah Matt, I was planning on changing the # to a 70 later on to see if it changed anything. Seems like most would call it differently based on the number change. I don't know if I agree, but it is certainly worth some discussion.