|
|||
Old, But Worth Revisiting
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?
__________________
"And I'm not just some fan, I've refereed football and basketball in addition to all the baseball I've umpired. I've never made a call that horrible in my life in any sport."---Greatest. Official. Ever. |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
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?
__________________
Bob M. |
|
|||
Quote:
Robert |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is it worth it??? | bigdog5142 | Basketball | 24 | Thu Aug 30, 2007 08:17pm |
Revisiting the Crow Hop | WestMichBlue | Softball | 6 | Sun Jan 25, 2004 09:35am |
For what it's worth | greymule | Softball | 28 | Wed Mar 19, 2003 02:21pm |
For What It's Worth | Bfair | Baseball | 2 | Tue Jan 22, 2002 02:28am |
Moving Up - Is it worth it | PeteBooth | Baseball | 7 | Thu Jul 12, 2001 12:49pm |