Question re illegal forward pass

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Why there needs to be a distance penalty for illegal forward pass is (ahem) beyond me. It's an easy enough foul to detect, it's not like you have to make up for them getting away with it occasionally.

What's your suggestion? - ignoring the penalty yardage?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by waltjp

What's your suggestion? - ignoring the penalty yardage?

Not ignoring it, abolishing it. Loss of down at the basic spot.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Not ignoring it, abolishing it. Loss of down at the basic spot.

Doesn't removing the distance penalty eliminate ALL of the risk in attempting an illegal pass? Clearly, since it's an illegal pass treating it as simply incomplete (Loss of down at the basic spot) offers NO consequence for trying it.

As an example, has the idea of establishing the "tackle box" (in relation to "dumping" a pass) reduced, or increased, the volume of passes dumped? I would suggest the removal of a yardage penalty would similarly increase the frequency of attempted illegal passes.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Doesn't removing the distance penalty eliminate ALL of the risk in attempting an illegal pass? Clearly, since it's an illegal pass treating it as simply incomplete (Loss of down at the basic spot) offers NO consequence for trying it.

Depending on the type of illegal pass, there shouldn't need to be add'l consequences for "trying" them. I'm referring to those types of illegal forward pass which are not intentional grounding, as in the case that started this thread. Since they're so easily detected, there doesn't need to be any disincentive for trying them. Nobody does them intentionally; they're done when the passer is either attempting a backward pass that goes forward, or doesn't realize the conditions for a legal forward pass haven't been met.

[bearclause]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Depending on the type of illegal pass, there shouldn't need to be add'l consequences for "trying" them. I'm referring to those types of illegal forward pass which are not intentional grounding, as in the case that started this thread. Since they're so easily detected, there doesn't need to be any disincentive for trying them. Nobody does them intentionally; they're done when the passer is either attempting a backward pass that goes forward, or doesn't realize the conditions for a legal forward pass haven't been met.

There is an incentive - to possibly avoid getting tackled and/or being at risk for coughing up the ball. A player could conceivably run full sprint not properly securing the ball, but prepared to toss it forward if there's a possibility of a tackle that could create a fumble. It's the onus of the ball carrier to known when or when it is not safe to throw a forward pass or for the ball to be properly thrown backwards.

There's also this type of illegal forward pass:

YouTube - Nick Foles boneheaded play, Shane Vereen TD

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bearclause

There is an incentive - to possibly avoid getting tackled and/or being at risk for coughing up the ball. A player could conceivably run full sprint not properly securing the ball, but prepared to toss it forward if there's a possibility of a tackle that could create a fumble. It's the onus of the ball carrier to known when or when it is not safe to throw a forward pass or for the ball to be properly thrown backwards.

That'd be ridiculously riskier of a fumble compared to being prepared to hit the dirt or (in some codes) cry "down".

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Depending on the type of illegal pass, there shouldn't need to be add'l consequences for "trying" them. I'm referring to those types of illegal forward pass which are not intentional grounding, as in the case that started this thread. Since they're so easily detected, there doesn't need to be any disincentive for trying them. Nobody does them intentionally; they're done when the passer is either attempting a backward pass that goes forward, or doesn't realize the conditions for a legal forward pass haven't been met.

Forgive me Robert, but I have never accepted the logic, nor agree with the reasons for the legal "dumping" at the collegiate level, and hold out a glimmer of hope that rule will someday be recinded. I like the HS version a lot better where a team, who decides to throw a forward pass is limited to only 2 options; either attempt the pass or run with the ball. There's no "freebes" allowing the passer to legally "dump" the ball, when neither of the other 2 options appear reasonable (aside from a "spike").

When the offense decides to pass, and the defense reacts so well that the offense is afraid to pass and doesn't want to run, why let them off the hook by simply dumping the pass? It's certainly not fair to the defense.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Forgive me Robert, but I have never accepted the logic, nor agree with the reasons for the legal "dumping" at the collegiate level, and hold out a glimmer of hope that rule will someday be recinded. I like the HS version a lot better where a team, who decides to throw a forward pass is limited to only 2 options; either attempt the pass or run with the ball. There's no "freebes" allowing the passer to legally "dump" the ball, when neither of the other 2 options appear reasonable (aside from a "spike").

So then what's wrong with loss of down in any of those situations?

Truth be known, I'm not a fan of allowing them to "gain" back to the previous spot on any incomplete pass, but in consideration of the uncertainty of completing one, the rules makers long ago decided to award that compensation. Nor do I like the idea of timing's being different depending on whether the ball becomes dead by incomplete pass or by run in or out of bounds. Yet the adoption of both such considerations have led to the further complications we see re intentional grounding and the spike.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So then what's wrong with loss of down in any of those situations?

I would think "Loss of Down" should be automatic, after all the act of dumping a pass means the play the offense called failed, one way or the other, so why would even think of giving that down back. Rule wise, it is what it is, and that's the way it will bedealt with (until the rules makers decide to change it).

I believe, at the NFHS level, the Illegal pass is considered a running play, (NF: 10-3-1a) which eliminates the timing confusion.

The problem with allowed dumping (outside the tackle box) is that: 1. The offense chose which type play to call. 2. The defense has to respond to whatever is called. When the defense does it's job and prevents the offense from attempting a legal forward pass, why give the offense an unearned opportunity to negate their own failure and the accomplishment of the defense, by simply dumping the ball. The NF rule also provides for enforcing the penalty from the end of the run (with an illegal pass, the spot of the pass) whether it's beyond, or behind, the LOS.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Not ignoring it, abolishing it. Loss of down at the basic spot.

Honestly, this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.