Roughing or not Study Group ? #1

[Reffing Rev.]

Hello all! Just as last year I will post for you a play created in the warped minds of some fellow crew chiefs around my parts for discussion amongst our crews.

FED RULES

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?

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

FED RULES
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?

With the usual caveat of "gotta see it":
I expect a flag for grounding would be VERY difficult to justify here. QB is under pressure & throwing on the run; the ball was at an eligible receiver. Even at short range, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume a misfire rather than intent.

By your use of the phrase "renews his charge", I presume you feel this qualifies for roughing. Despite the fact that the ball may have hit the ground a fraction of a second before the illegal contact, I would say this is sufficiently bang-bang to call roughing anyway. Should you disagree, it should still be a "regular" personal foul, which in this case yields a first down anyway.

If it's 4th down, then it makes a big difference which way you call it. Roughing is a live-ball foul with an automatic first down. The other way, it's a dead-ball personal foul that results in a turnover on downs before enforcing the penalty. In my mind, this should be roughing unless it's blatantly obvious to everybody in the stadium that the ball hit well before the contact.

This is R's primary call. Any of L, U, or B could have the information that the ball hit the ground before the contact occurred. If R comes up with a grounding flag on his own, L should inform him that there was an eligible receiver in the immediate vicinity.

[ajmc]

There are several "loaded" words in this question that can slant an answer in either direction. "Under heavy pressure he throws the ball at the feet of A88" is absolutely an illegal pass. That wording suggests a conclusion, regardless of how hard it might be to reach a conclusion that the pass was intentionally incomplete.

"B99 renews his charge and levels defenseless A1 just after the ball strikes the ground", seems a little overly dramatic, to have all happened within , "around a second", but again the wording suggests a conclusion has been made that the contact was deliberate, intentional and unnecessary.

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.

All of the key factors in this play are absolute and pure judgment calls, and as suggested above, are dependent on, "you gotta see it".

The keys are: 1. No matter how quick, no matter how short the pass, if the judgment is that the pass was deliberately incompleted, A is guilty of an illegal pass. If the judgment was that B's contact with the passer was avoidable, then you have a roughing penalty.

There is no absolute guideline for either situation. Each instance is unique and each is what the covering official has to decide it is. Judgment calls are what they are, and if they're made considering the appropriate factors, they are correct. Opinions, about what was judged are only that, and rarely have any bearing.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

What if you judge the pass was just poorly thrown?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

What if you judge the pass was just poorly thrown?

This is why I suggested the answer is tainted because the way the question was asked. The question states, "Under heavy pressure he throws the ball at the feet of A88", which is a statement of a deliberate, intentional action. If it stated "he threw the pass, which landed at the feet of A88" there would be room to consider how well it was thrown, did he lose his grip and all sorts of other considerations.

The key remains, it's a judgment call all the way. Depending on what the covering official judges the difference could be black or white. If the pass was simply judged to be a poorly thrown pass, all it is, is an incomplete pass.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The key remains, it's a judgment call all the way. Depending on what the covering official judges the difference could be black or white. If the pass was simply judged to be a poorly thrown pass, all it is, is an incomplete pass.

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.

[JRutledge]

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.

It is one of those HTBT situations. I am not also worried that much about a coach thinks anyway. And any supervisor should know the rule and realize that the Referee has several things to factor. Not saying this would not be an easy call, but a call can be made the all the same. After all that is why it is a judgment call and we all do not see the same plays the same way.

Peace

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.