Roughing or not Study Group ? #1

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

3rd and 10 at A35. A1 receives the snap and rolls right towards L. Under heavy pressure he throws the ball at the feet of A88 who is within the expanded neutral zone. B99 renews his charge and levels defenseless A1 just after the ball strikes the ground. The timeframe from release to incompletion to contact is around a second.
What do you got? How would it change if it were 4th down? Who contributes what to the conversation R, U, L, BJ?

CANADIAN RULING:

No foul for grounding. No foul for a late hit. No changes for last down. Officials contribute facts that they know.

Keep It Simple, S_______!

[CWIG]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Depending on how you determine those loaded words, you can have either; (1) an incomplete pass, followed by B roughing the passer, (2) a double foul for A's illegal pass coupled with B's roughing pass, (3) No foul on either team for either action or (4) either foul on one team, and be entirely (by rule)correct.

Keep in mind, you cannot have an offset for a double foul as stated in #2 above. There is no roughing the passer if the pass was illegal. You could possibly have a personal foul for the hit on the QB, but not roughing the passer. If you judged that the personal foul was during the live ball action, then you could have an offset. If you judged that the personal foul was after the incomplete pass, then you would have a dead ball foul and you would enforce live ball/dead ball. This enforcement would remain the same even if this play occurred on 4th down.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Forgive me if I'm not making myself clear enough. The issue I'm trying to convey is not determining whether the pass was deliberately incompleted or not, becuaue the question STATED that it was thrown at the receivers feet, which would make that a deliberate act.

I agree that it is extremely difficult to make that judgment, as there are numerous factors that may point in a different direction, but if an official does make that judgment (that the pass was intentionally incompleted) it must be a foul.

Under the NFHS code Table 7-5-2-d lists, "A pass intentionally thrown to save yardage or to conserve time is an illegal pass. Other than the unique exception of a passer intentionally throwing the ball forward to the ground immediately after receiving a direct hand to hand snap, to conserve time, a passer can never, legally, intentionally incomplete a forward pass.

Nonsense.

At the receiver's feet, even deliberately, is still throwing it at a receiver. Even if you judge that he threw it at the feet intentionally, that doesn't make it illegal - you don't know with 100% certainty that this pass was thrown to save yards. We've seen QB's throw a pass to a specific spot so it's not picked. There's no way for you to be in this QB's head and KNOW that's not the case here. If the ball HITS his feet and comes up, it can still be caught. You absolutely, unequivocally do NOT have an illegal pass just because it was thrown at feet.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Nonsense.

At the receiver's feet, even deliberately, is still throwing it at a receiver. Even if you judge that he threw it at the feet intentionally, that doesn't make it illegal - you don't know with 100% certainty that this pass was thrown to save yards. We've seen QB's throw a pass to a specific spot so it's not picked. There's no way for you to be in this QB's head and KNOW that's not the case here. If the ball HITS his feet and comes up, it can still be caught. You absolutely, unequivocally do NOT have an illegal pass just because it was thrown at feet.

Let me try, one more time, IF you reach a conclusion that the passer deliberately intended the pass to be incomplete (dumped the pass)- it is a foul, under the NFHS code, for an illegal pass. When you make that judgment, you have no choice but to flag it.

To not flag it, is a disservice to the defensive team who has done their job. If you honestly doubt that the incompletion was intentional, that is an entirely different matter. To judge ANY pass being intentionally thrown to be incomplete not only do you have to look into a passer's head, you often have to see clear through to his soul, but that's your job.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Let me try, one more time, IF you reach a conclusion that the passer deliberately intended the pass to be incomplete (dumped the pass)- it is a foul, under the NFHS code, for an illegal pass. When you make that judgment, you have no choice but to flag it.

To not flag it, is a disservice to the defensive team who has done their job. If you honestly doubt that the incompletion was intentional, that is an entirely different matter. To judge ANY pass being intentionally thrown to be incomplete not only do you have to look into a passer's head, you often have to see clear through to his soul, but that's your job.

My job is to officiate the game based on the spirit and intent of the rules. For me to throw a flag on this play would violate both.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Let me try, one more time, IF you reach a conclusion that the passer deliberately intended the pass to be incomplete (dumped the pass)- it is a foul, under the NFHS code, for an illegal pass. When you make that judgment, you have no choice but to flag it.

Fair enough, and point made. Reading the OP, I don't believe that decision was made at all. "at the feet" is not the same as deliberately intending the pass to be incomplete. the description in the OP is not a foul ... unless there is more here than was posted, or more intended by those words than what he said.

I would add that if a referee were to feel, in his heart, that such a pass is intentionally incomplete, and flagged it as such, then he would likely have his judgement seriously questioned by his superiors.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Fair enough, and point made. Reading the OP, I don't believe that decision was made at all. "at the feet" is not the same as deliberately intending the pass to be incomplete. the description in the OP is not a foul ... unless there is more here than was posted, or more intended by those words than what he said.

I would add that if a referee were to feel, in his heart, that such a pass is intentionally incomplete, and flagged it as such, then he would likely have his judgement seriously questioned by his superiors.

I think the problem is we're trying to relate to a verbal question, rather than something we've actually seen and I hope we're seeing different pictures. Looking back at the original question, the comment is preceeded by "under heavy pressure.....", which, at least to me, suggests the pass was "dumped".

I also believe 'dumping" is a purely judgment call that has to be made EXCLUSIVELY by the referee. He may get help from his wings in situations where a receiver cut a different way, fell down or there were other contributing factors, but the referee has to read dumping directly in, and from, the passer. There is no supervisor I can envision ever being in a position to "seriously question" that judgment.