RTP or just PF?
 

QB throws a pass and gets hit. The hit is almost immediately after the pass is thrown, but it's a hard helmet-to-helmet hit.

Would this be RTP or just a PF? The timing of the hit itself is good - had there been no helmet contact, there would have been no foul.

You've answered your own question. A PF does not become RTP just because the he happens to be a passer.

Flag the helmet contact. What's the basic spot?

I beg to differ, a PF applied to a player who is a passer is EXACTlY what Roughing the Passer is all about. The entire concept is that a passer, because of the added vulnerability included with passing, is afforded additional protection (Same concept for roughing the kicker, holder or snapper).

Any PF delivered to a player, while satisfying the definition of a "passer"
(NF:2-32-11) should be condidered RTP, so as to include the additional penalties associated with that specific foul. Where the RTP additional sanctions do NOT apply is when the foul is committed either before, or after, the requirements of the player fouled, of being a "passer" are not present.

...and the same rationale would apply under NCAA rules.

Both Rules Ctte's wish to strongly dissuade this type of contact. Adding the 15yds to the end of the play if the pass is caught is how they have chosen to do this. Whilst he is still regarded as the passer, then any PF counts as RTP, not just the late ones.

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

If the pass was completed, tack on the 15. If incomplete, enforce from the previous spot. In both cases, automatic first down.

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.

great call ajmc...RTP

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.

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.

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.

NFHS: What is helmet to helmet contact?

I guess you mean the defender committed spearing or face tackling. Just checking.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

This is RTP - Spearing. Always has been, always will be. 15+AFD.

"You call it your way, I'll call it mine" works perfectly well for me, kdf5. For the record I've been wrong way more times than I'd care to count and thankfully have avoided repeating a lot of those mistakes by listening to advice from others WHO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Believe me, I couldn't care less about your "opinion", unless I can learn from it, so I have no interest in "slinging" anything. Sorry about your aversion to detail, but if you spent a little more time considering those pesky details, your opinions would be a lot more accurate and valuable.

Allow me to give you a hint, nobody (that matters) keeps score about the number of times an opinion is right, or wrong. The object is simply for everyone to avoid being wrong as much as possible. You explained NOTHING, you offered your opinion which was rejected as being inaccurate and petty. If you'd like to explain your reasoning more clearly, patiently and with some of those pesky details to support your conclusion, I'd be happy to consider your input as long as it might help me avoid new mistakes.

Barking that you're right and anything else is wrong, because you said so, just doesn't cut it. If you last long enough, doing this thing we do, you may learn that the more you understand and think you know, only exposes you to how much extra you need to learn and have yet to understand.

First, if I were going to listen to someone on this board, you'd be the last person. As far as what I've offered, what I did was quote the exact rule, word for word, not my opinion. The rule for roughing specifically says after it is clear the ball has been thrown. Therefore if a hit on the passer is legal in its timing but has a PF aspect to it, like the original play, it is a PF, not roughing.

As usual, you've dodged the details, you've filled the pages with your crap and I know for a fact that since I've been on this forum you have dodged every question I've ever posed to you and you've dodged them because your answer to my questions would have proven you wrong. Hearing you say you're open minded and will consider new evidence is total BS. You are on here for one reason only and that is to sling crap at others who disagree with you.

The only one on here barking that they're right is you. No one else has disputed my posts but you. No one. The sad thing is that you aren't but you're not man enough to nut up and admit it. I don't need to join your club. I'm in my 3rd decade of doing this. The only thing I need to understand from you is that you're a nut job.

I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience trying to explain yourself kdf5, but whining about it isn't going to provide much solace. I don't know what details you think I've dodged, and I think you missed an important point, I am open to suggestion, but only when the person making the suggestion appears to know what he's talking about and is willing and able to make his point, which you haven't even attempted to do, thus far. You just seem somewhat hung up on this "I'm right, you're wrong" stuff that really isn't all that important, because nobody, or at least most, bothers to keep score.

I've tried to ignore your nit picking before, on a number of issues, because most times it's just not anything worth arguing about, but here there's a serious penalty differential, so it does make a difference. I remember back when I was in my 3rd decade of officiating, and I don't recall being so inflexible or easily offended.

I've explained myself perfectly. I quoted the rule, you've blown hot air as usual and your contention you're open to reason is more hot air since you've dodged every question I've ever put in front of you. Time and time again, I've put questions in front of you and you've blown hot air and did the shuck and jive around them. You don't have enough sack to answer my questions is the bottom line. You've not proven me wrong here and you can't. Get over it.

Therein may lay the difference, I don't feel responsible to "prove you wrong" about anything, especially when you are so adept at doing it yourself. Again, for the record, I have provided the best answers possible to any and every question you have asked, that wasn't stupid or sarcastic. Your "explanations" may be a lot of things, but "perfectly clear" is not on the list.

I've tried to explain my positions as clearly as possible, sometimes even using crayons for your benefit when necessary. Don't try the "shuck & jive nonsense about avoiding your questions, you're just FOS about my ducking any legitimate questions you've ever asked. Perhaps you couldn't recognize appropriate answers.

If you've got a question, spit it out. I won't guarantee you'll like the answer, but it will be plainly stated and understandable, whether you'll be competent to understand, or agree with it or not, except when you attempt to be a smart a$$, which you're pretty obvious about. Then I'll rely on what I've learned over the years, ignore as much empty BS as possible, and focus on who and what matters.

Therein may lay the difference, I don't feel responsible to "prove you wrong" about anything, especially when you are so adept at doing it yourself. Again, for the record, I have provided the best answers possible to any and every question you have asked, that wasn't stupid or sarcastic, perhaps you just weren't able to recognize, or comprehend, an appropriate answer.

I've tried to explain my positions as clearly as possible, sometimes even using crayons, for your benefit, when necessary. Don't try the "shuck & jive nonsense, you're just FOS about my ducking any legitimate questions you've asked.

If you've got a question, spit it out. I won't guarantee you'll like the answer, but it will be plainly stated and reasily understandable, whether you'll be competent to understand, or agree with it, or not, except when you attempt to be a smart a$$, which you're pretty obvious about. Then I'll rely on what I've learned over the years, ignore as much empty BS as possible, and focus on who and what matters.

I feel like I've seen this movie before.

It was actually a popular TV series in the 80s but it was much more entertaining ; )