Question re illegal forward pass

[Fan10]

I'm a fan here, and I tried to find the answer in the rule book at ncaa.org, but I must not be looking in the right place:

If on 4th down, the QB crosses the line of scrimmage and throws an illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage and the pass is caught for a first down, I know that the defense will have to accept the penalty because declining it would result in a first down. So, when they accept it, is the 5 yards marked off from the spot of the pass and then the possession goes over to the other team five yards from the spot of the pass?

(B) If this is the case, what if after the five yards is marked off, the ball is still past the line to gain?

(C) If the QB passes beyond the line of scrimmage on a 2 point conversion and it's caught for an apparnet successful two point conversion, is the try simply no good and we kickoff?

Thanks in advance.

[With_Two_Flakes]

Originally Posted by Fan10

I'm a fan here, and I tried to find the answer in the rule book at ncaa.org, but I must not be looking in the right place:

Dont beat yourself up about it, I've been working NCA Rules for 20+ years and I still struggle to find the right place to look sometimes

.....when they accept it, is the 5 yards marked off from the spot of the pass

Yes, 7-3-2 says the penalty for that type of illegal forward pass is 5yds from the spot of the foul plus loss of down.

(B) If this is the case, what if after the five yards is marked off, the ball is still past the line to gain?

Then they get a new first down. It might help to think of "Loss of Down" as shorthand for "loss of the right to repeat a down after the penalty yardage has been marched". In your scenario, they don't need the right to repeat the down as they made enough yards (even after the foul) to move the chains.

To help make penalty enforcement on fouls by Team A make sense is to think of it like this....
1st and 10 from midfield. A player makes a great run to the 5yd line where he is tackled. His teammate held someone at the 10yd line.

It would be a harsh penalty indeed if we went all the way back to the neutral zone and marched the 10yd holding from there. The guy made 40 yds honestly. The hold at the 10 likely only affected the yards made from the 10 to the 5. So we march the holding penalty from the flag at the 10, back to the 20. That is still enough for a 1st down so they get a new 1st and 10.

(C) If the QB passes beyond the line of scrimmage on a 2 point conversion and it's caught for an apparnet successful two point conversion, is the try simply no good and we kickoff?

You are correct. Rule 8-3-3-c-2 says:-
"If Team A commits a foul for which the penalty includes loss of down, the try is over, and the score is cancelled, and no yardage penalty is assessed on the succeeding kickoff. "

[Fan10]

Thanks for the info.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

To help make penalty enforcement on fouls by Team A make sense is to think of it like this....
1st and 10 from midfield. A player makes a great run to the 5yd line where he is tackled. His teammate held someone at the 10yd line.

It would be a harsh penalty indeed if we went all the way back to the neutral zone and marched the 10yd holding from there. The guy made 40 yds honestly. The hold at the 10 likely only affected the yards made from the 10 to the 5. So we march the holding penalty from the flag at the 10, back to the 20. That is still enough for a 1st down so they get a new 1st and 10.

You know what would make even more sense? March the penalty from where the ball was when the hold occurred. After all that is how much yardage was obtained prior to the illegal act and so that is what the player should get credit for.

This is what we do in Canada. We use the concept of Point Ball Held to determine the point of application in this situation.

Mind you, finding Point Ball Held is harder than establishing Point of Foul so sometimes I do envy the simplicity of Point of Foul.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

You know what would make even more sense? March the penalty from where the ball was when the hold occurred.

That's exactly what happens in Two Flake's play. Using the 3 and 1 Principle, the foul is behind the end of the run so we enforce from the spot of the foul. If the foul were in advance of the end of the run, we would enforce from the end of the run.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by Welpe

That's exactly what happens in Two Flake's play. Using the 3 and 1 Principle, the foul is behind the end of the run so we enforce from the spot of the foul. If the foul were in advance of the end of the run, we would enforce from the end of the run.

The Two Flakes play said nothing of where the BALL was when the hold occurred. This is not the same place as where the FOUL is (though in some cases it could be.)

The difference is illustrated in two examples:

1. Ball is at the Team B 25 yard line when the hold occurs at the 20. End of run is the 5.
- In Canada we would enforce from the 25
- In the U.S. you would enforce from the 20.
- In this case, we believe you give 5 yards too many from what the team earned prior to the foul.

2. Ball is at the Team B 15 yard line when the hold occurs at the 20. End of the run is the 5.
- In Canada we would enforce from the 15
- In the U.S. you would enforce from the 20.
- In this case, we believe you give 5 yards too few from what the team earned prior to the foul.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

The Two Flakes play said nothing of where the BALL was when the hold occurred. This is not the same place as where the FOUL is (though in some cases it could be.)

You are correct, I misread your post. My apologies.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.