Roughing or not Study Group ? #1

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by The Roamin' Umpire

While this is true, I suggest to you that you're going to have an extremely tough sell if you call grounding here. I would even go so far as to say that probably most of the relevant people (i.e. coaches and officials' supervisors) believe that this is a good play by the QB and would like us to pass on this call.

Different rules at different levels, so depending on which code you're working under, I guess if your objective is making "the relevant people" like you, you may have a point. Otherwise, if you're working under the NFHS code, you might consider just doing your job.

If (and it's a very important "if") you believe the QB has "dumped" the pass, your JOB is to flag him for doing it, because not flagging him is an absolute disservice and UNearned disadvantage to the defensive team which has done it's job in defending the play.

I assure you the defensive coach will not be impressed and any supervisor worth their salt will understand your thought process and respect you for doing your job, rather than youur being overly concerned with how you may be perceived.

[Mike L]

Wow. Release, renewed charge, ball hitting the ground, hit on the passer all within 1 second. That's a lot to see in such a short period of time.
All in all, I'm going to avoid any attempt to prove my super human eyesight and timing here, and go with what is the best thing to call for game management.
If I feel the charge was indeed renewed and the contact avoidable (considering the "leveling" I think we can concede the excessive part) brings out my flag for roughing the passer. The only thing I'll want to hear from the other guys, was there indeed an eligible receiver anywhere close to where the pass went.

[Texas Aggie]

"Under heavy pressure he throws the ball at the feet of A88" is absolutely an illegal pass.

You're asking for trouble by taking this strong a stance here. The grounding rule, both Fed and NCAA, prevents a QB from gaining an advantage by throwing a ball to essentially nowhere. If he throws it at his feet, you can't determine whether the throw was bad, the receiver didn't properly move to receive it, or numerous other things. Even IF the QB was trying to throw an incomplete pass, he gets to do that, as long as the applicable rule is followed -- that being an eligible receiver is nearby.

Is it grounding for a QB to throw a slant route pass to a slot receiver breaking across the middle at his feet?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

You're asking for trouble by taking this strong a stance here. The grounding rule, both Fed and NCAA, prevents a QB from gaining an advantage by throwing a ball to essentially nowhere. If he throws it at his feet, you can't determine whether the throw was bad, the receiver didn't properly move to receive it, or numerous other things. Even IF the QB was trying to throw an incomplete pass, he gets to do that, as long as the applicable rule is followed -- that being an eligible receiver is nearby.

Is it grounding for a QB to throw a slant route pass to a slot receiver breaking across the middle at his feet?

I had a partner call grounding on a pass that actually hit a receiver. His judgement was that he thought it was an obvious attempt to avoid a sack and he (QB) did not see the receiver anyway (which may have been true). We couldn't talk him out of it. He didn't work much after that.

[MD Longhorn]

I can't even vaguely imagine calling grounding on this play. QB is off balance - I don't know how you could possibly determine that it was thrown poorly on purpose. Forget coaches - I believe you'd have an incredibly hard time justifying that call to your partners or supervisors (assuming they saw it).

HTBT regarding Roughing vs Roughness - but the rule is put in to protect a defenseless QB. What I would consider is ... would I call this foul if it wasn't the QB. If yes - then perhaps we have roughness. If this is anywhere near borderline, it's roughing.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Different rules at different levels, so depending on which code you're working under, I guess if your objective is making "the relevant people" like you, you may have a point. Otherwise, if you're working under the NFHS code, you might consider just doing your job.

I assure you, making people like me has never been my objective - if nothing else, I shoot my mouth off too often for that to work anyway.

I should clarify my original statement: I have no interest in making the particular coaches that I see on a given night happy. I have some interest in making my assigner/supervisor happy. I have a great interest in making the area's players, coaches, and even fans as a whole happy with the games they are seeing, and by extension the officiating - and that requires some common understanding about how certain plays will be called.

Furthermore (and this was a major change in philosophy for me that took years to process), I recognize that that rulebook is not the entirety of that common understanding. It's a joint venture between coaches and officials - if the coaches are unhappy with the way something is being called, they'll let the officials' association know. The officials, in turn, will revise the "standards" they use when making a judgment on that type of play. And I think that's how it should be - in the end, the game is not "ours" but "theirs"; we're just there to serve their needs.

So, what I was saying in my original reply is that I strongly believe (and I *could* be wrong) that if you showed a tape of the play described to 100 coaches and/or supervisors, 80+ would say that grounding was a poor call. Since I'm not sure, I intend to bring it up at one of our association's preseason meetings, because in the end, we want everybody to call this the same way.

[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.

Your philosophy about how and why the rules are mutually adjusted to deal with rulings that coaches may be unhappy about may be acceptable in your area, but doesn't apply to such decisions in States I've worked in.

Consistency is always a goal, but the notion that similar plays are always alike and should therefore be called a certain, specific way is at best an illusion.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Nope, we're good, you're clear. A few years ago, I would have agreed wholeheartedly. My stance has shifted over time - I can't exactly put my finger on why. But I certainly have a sense (possibly obtained from other officials) that there are certain types of judgments that "nobody" wants to see made - especially when there is need to assess intent.

[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.