Mess at the End of the Half

[OverAndBack]

2-32-11:"A passer is a player who throws a legal forward pass."

7-5-2a-e: "The illegal forward passes are: a pass after team possession has changed during the down; a pass from beyond the neutral zone; a pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver; a pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time; and a second or subsequent forward pass thrown during a down."

A player who throws an illegal forward pass is not a passer and is not subject to roughing the passer protection. He can be unnecessarily roughed, though.

[Rich]

I will add that if this is not the intention of the citations that we (myself and OTB) provided, the rules are not written well. There is no case play to cover this particular play, but I think the rules are quite clear.

[parepat]

Thanks guys. My 2005 rules book that I keep at work does not have "legal" in definition of passer. Must have changed since then.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by parepat

Thanks guys. My 2005 rules book that I keep at work does not have "legal" in definition of passer. Must have changed since then.

I think it changed in 2007, but I'm not sure. I do remember the "legal" being highlighted at some point. I just have Rules by Topic and Simplified & Illustrated with me at work.

[With_Two_Flakes]

Changed in 2007, I just checked in my Fed book and "legal" is highlighted. 2-32-11 is also listed right at the front of the book in the rule changes section.

At the back of the book (page 90) in the "Comments on 2007 changes", it says

adding the word legal to the definition of a passer will clarify the rule


The rule committee might have been thinking primarily about illegal passes from beyond the line and not wanting RTP on those instances?
.

[OverAndBack]

That may have been part of the genesis of it. If a would-be passer is past the line, the defense has a right to consider him a runner, with whom you have a bit more latitude. If said runner suddenly becomes a passer after he's crossed the line and throws a ball and you nail him, it doesn't seem fair that he could say he was a passer.

That said, if they'd meant it to be only for illegal passes beyond the line (which is only one of the many illegal passes), they could have specified that.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

Changed in 2007, I just checked in my Fed book and "legal" is highlighted. 2-32-11 is also listed right at the front of the book in the rule changes section.

At the back of the book (page 90) in the "Comments on 2007 changes", it says

adding the word legal to the definition of a passer will clarify the rule


The rule committee might have been thinking primarily about illegal passes from beyond the line and not wanting RTP on those instances?
.

Regardless, it says what it says. IG is usually thrown with imminent pressure and it's unlikely we're going to have RTP in a normal IG situation anyway. But once ruled IG, we either have a PF or we have nothing.

[cmathews]

Yes the rule for a passer mentions legal forward pass, and the rule concerning roughing the passer does indeed refer to a passer, though not the legality of the pass....with that said, the guy that threw the illegal pass, still gets some protection from me. We won't have RTP but the same contact that warrants RTP will be unnecessary roughness in my game. My reasoning is that the thrower of the pass considers themself a passer, and will most likely act like a passer, and the defender will think of him as a passer, and if he hits a player whom he thinks is a passer in a way that would be RTP then he will get a flag from me. Now again with all that said, it would have to be an obvious RTP, if it is a love tap that may or may not be in a normal situation, it won't be here.... now I have to get down off of the fence, all this riding of the fence is giving me splinters in unmetionable places LOL