RTP or just PF?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Forksref

I go with RTP in these situations. He is more vulnerable than a runner would be.

This is a mistake if he no longer qualifies as a passer. But I agree that if it's borderline the benefit of the doubt should go toward RTP.

[whitehat]

great call ajmc...RTP

[kdf5]

9-4-4...Roughing the passer. Defensive players must make a definite effort to avoid charging into a passer, who has thrown the ball from in or behind the neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown. No defensive player shall charge into the passer who is standing still or fading back, because he is considered out of the play after the pass.

Call it the way you want but technically the OP is a PF, not roughing.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

9-4-4...Roughing the passer. Defensive players must make a definite effort to avoid charging into a passer, who has thrown the ball from in or behind the neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown. No defensive player shall charge into the passer who is standing still or fading back, because he is considered out of the play after the pass.

Call it the way you want but technically the OP is a PF, not roughing.

Forgive me, but sometimes new, or creative, interpretations related to issues that have long been otherwise established, serve only to confuse.

There are a number of Personal foul penalties described in NF: 9-4 (Personal Conduct). Beyond those fouls NF 9-4, 9-5 and 9-6 provide additional penalty specifically to afford additional protection to certain players who have been recognized as being especially vulnerable to injury while engaging in specific unique activities.

If a player is a "Passer", as defined in Rule 2 (NF: 2-32-11) he is entitled to those additional protections afforded by the additional penalty associated with committing a personal foul, against a passer .

"Technically" weaselwording a foul committed against a "passer", into a lesser offense, is depriving him of the added protection that is deliberately sought by the creation of a rule designed specifically to protect him.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Forgive me, but sometimes new, or creative, interpretations related to issues that have long been otherwise established, serve only to confuse.

There are a number of Personal foul penalties described in NF: 9-4 (Personal Conduct). Beyond those fouls NF 9-4, 9-5 and 9-6 provide additional penalty specifically to afford additional protection to certain players who have been recognized as being especially vulnerable to injury while engaging in specific unique activities.

If a player is a "Passer", as defined in Rule 2 (NF: 2-32-11) he is entitled to those additional protections afforded by the additional penalty associated with committing a personal foul, against a passer .

"Technically" weaselwording a foul committed against a "passer", into a lesser offense, is depriving him of the added protection that is deliberately sought by the creation of a rule designed specifically to protect him.

Technically, what I'm doing is applying the rule as it's written, not making up my own ruling based on some longwinded desire to be right regardless.

Like I said, call it the way you want but if you call an immediate cheap shot on the passer roughing then you are wrong. If you want an arbiter, check the Redding Guide.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Technically, what I'm doing is applying the rule as it's written, not making up my own ruling based on some longwinded desire to be right regardless.

Like I said, call it the way you want but if you call an immediate cheap shot on the passer roughing then you are wrong. If you want an arbiter, check the Redding Guide.

I'm not looking for an arbiter, kdf5, I'd be perfectly satisfied if you can explain where I'm wrong. You seem to be applying this rule, as you think it should be applied, and should therefore be able to explain your arriving at your conclusion. The salient difference between PF and RTF is the additional penalty applied because of the perceived added vulnerability of the Passer.

It seems you are trying to split the hair between "until the pass is complete or until he moves to participate in the play" (NF:2-32-11) and the added admonition, "No defensive player shall charge into the passer who is standing still or fading back, because he is considered out of the play after the pass" (NF:9-4-4), which seem to support each other rather than create a contradiction.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm not looking for an arbiter, kdf5, I'd be perfectly satisfied if you can explain where I'm wrong.

I'm sure you're not looking for an arbiter because he'd tell you you're wrong too. Here's the problem, Al: you're never wrong. I've explained it. You refuse to listen. You'd rather sling insults and type paragraphs of smoke and mirror BS all in an effort to refuse to admit you're wrong. You call it your way, I'll call it mine but at the end of the day, you're wrong.