Old, But Worth Revisiting

[OverAndBack]

This goes back a while, but someone in my office just emailed it to me and I wasn't thinking as an official in 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhYB8OFMaN8

Without coming down with any part of his body, that can't be a catch, right? (Let's look at this both ways - the NCAA perspective and then what if it happened in your game Friday night.)

I don't know about the NCAA rule (someone help me out here), but the NFHS rule talks about a pass after a change of possession. The player in question doesn't complete the requirements for possession if he doesn't come down with the ball in the field of play, correct?

So isn't this more of tip even though it's intentional and a "catch-and-release" type scenario? Does it seem illegal to you?

[Robert Goodman]

I can't view the video, but I know what you mean. It's why the NFL adopted a "controlled bat" provision to cover and formally legalize such cases. Traditionally it's been considered a pass even though technically it's not, nor is it really a bat.

Robert

[Theisey]

The key is that the receiver is airborne and really hasn't yet completed the catch of the pass. He therefore may "bat" it in any direction.

That play you have a video of (Peach Bowl) was the first time anyone can recollect it actually happening in a game. Yet a play like that was on a preseaon test a few years earlier (maybe '98) but with the typical way you might see it as an A-player batting it to another eligble A-player. I can positively state my NCAA chapter at the time discussed this play heatedly in an early season (july) meeting in 2000. I flipped out when I saw it actually happen months later. A top Referee in a major 1A conference who was also a member of my chapter later in 2000 said if such a play were to occur it was a legal play.

Bottom line is it has been legal at all times (both codes). The crew in that game incorrectly flagged the play because of confusion I suppose. While some say there was a rule change made for 2001, all that really was done the following year, was to put in an AR using the words "propel" rather than "bat". It applied to both team-A and to team-B.

I don't think a play like this has been seen since that game.

[kdf5]

In NF, it's really not an illegal pass since an IFP would have to be a pass after possession has changed and since he didn't make the catch by coming down inbounds he didn't complete the catch and it's really not a COP. It's not a pass from beyond the NZ since he caught it behind the (his) NZ. It really isn't a bat per 2-2. Therefore it seems to me the "pass" in the video by the Auburn player would be legal.

[Fan10]

Here is a nicely written article about the play and the ruling from a pretty good source--the referee from that game, Jon Bible:

http://referee.com/more/Samples/non_...batorpass.html

[JugglingReferee]

Great link, Fan10. Thanks!

[dumbref]

What if the the same thing occured on a free kick that has already touched the ground? Legal?

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by dumbref

What if the the same thing occured on a free kick that has already touched the ground? Legal?

REPLY: No, since it's not legal to bat a grounded kick. And I think that what we've determined is that since the 'batter' has not completed his recovery, he cannot have player possession and therefore his actions cannot be construed to be a pass since a pass presupposes possession. Are you thinking the same way?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: No, since it's not legal to bat a grounded kick. And I think that what we've determined is that since the 'batter' has not completed his recovery, he cannot have player possession and therefore his actions cannot be construed to be a pass since a pass presupposes possession. Are you thinking the same way?

But it might not satisfy the definition of "bat" either. Is it defined in terms of striking the ball? If you infer an attempt to gain possession by that player, it might be a muff, but you'd probably infer more of an intention to direct the ball than to personally gain possession of it.

Robert

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: No, since it's not legal to bat a grounded kick. And I think that what we've determined is that since the 'batter' has not completed his recovery, he cannot have player possession and therefore his actions cannot be construed to be a pass since a pass presupposes possession. Are you thinking the same way?

The problem is - it does not exactly fit the definition of an illegal bat. It's not a strike or a slap of the ball. No doubt it is intentional but that is the only criteria that fits. K certainly has the right to gain possession of a grounded free kick (making the assumption it has been ten yards). It can not be an illegal pass - I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but a good play by K if they catch or recover in the field of play.