Bouquet pass

[voiceoflg]

YouTube - Bethel College Football Trick Play

[With_Two_Flakes]

Roughing the passer?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

Roughing the passer?

No.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

Roughing the passer?

It's close, but I would not flag it.

[Patton]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No.

Why not JR? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm curious of your reasoning or philosophy on it.

[Ref inSoCA]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

Roughing the passer?

No

[chymechowder]

first angle looked pretty close to roughing. but the endzone view "exonerates" the defender, imo.

the ball appears to be INSIDE the 1 yardline. why on earth would you risk a pass like that? anybody know if Bethel was up or down by like 40 points when this play occurred??

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Patton

Why not JR? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm curious of your reasoning or philosophy on it.

For one it is not a conventional pass. It is in question as to if he still had the ball. I would give the benefit of the doubt to the benefit of the doubt for such an unusual pass. Now if the hit was several seconds later, then yes. But not for this particular play. I am sure some might disagree, but this is just my take. It certainly does not mean I am correct.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the benefit of the doubt for such an unusual pass.

Late night last night? Or maybe I should ask: last night last night?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For one it is not a conventional pass. It is in question as to if he still had the ball. I would give the benefit of the doubt to the benefit of the doubt for such an unusual pass. Now if the hit was several seconds later, then yes. But not for this particular play. I am sure some might disagree, but this is just my take. It certainly does not mean I am correct.

Peace

The foundation for applying all rules is sound judgment and fairness. Considering the caveat, "after it is clear the ball has been thrown" to assess Roughing the passer as defined in NF 9-4-4, considering this contact a foul would seem inappropriate. Your assessment, this would not be a foul, seems to step through a logical progression.

[golfnref]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The foundation for applying all rules is sound judgment and fairness. Considering the caveat, "after it is clear the ball has been thrown" to assess Roughing the passer as defined in NF 9-4-4, considering this contact a foul would seem inappropriate. Your assessment, this would not be a foul, seems to step through a logical progression.

He said what?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by golfnref

He said what?

I'll try again, the passer threw what can reasonably be considered an unconventional pass (2 hand over the shoulder, with his back towards the receiver) and the defensive end may very well not have realized the ball was thrown (as he was approaching the passer from behind) and seems to have committed his charge before realizing there actually was a pass being thrown.

So it may not have been clear, to the defensive end who made the contact, so there is reasonable doubt that the penalty requirement of, "it was clear that the ball had been thrown" was satisfied.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by golfnref

He said what?

TRANSLATION: He doesn't believe that a foul should be called.

Originally Posted by ajmc

The foundation for applying all rules is sound judgment and fairness. Considering the caveat, "after it is clear the ball has been thrown" to assess Roughing the passer as defined in NF 9-4-4, considering this contact a foul would seem inappropriate. Your assessment, this would not be a foul, seems to step through a logical progression.

Hmmm...OK...Your response to Rut's response means you would agree if Rut didn't throw a flag for roughing when the QB throws a short under-handed shovel pass to his RB when dropping back. Sounds logical.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Hmmm...OK...Your response to Rut's response means you would agree if Rut didn't throw a flag for roughing when the QB throws a short under-handed shovel pass to his RB when dropping back. Sounds logical.

No, that really doesn't sound like anything remotely close to what I said, or at least intended to say. My response was targeted for a particular, very unconventional, play situation shown in the original video. If you don't agree with the answer, that's OK, but it doesn't work to simply apply it to a completely different question.