What kind of foul?

[BroKen62]

IMHO, it would be hard to argue against IT in (b).

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

IMHO, it would be hard to argue against IT in (b).

IG would be a bigger punishment to A but I suppose it depends if it truly is IG or not.

bsaucer, the illegal touching rule in NCAA is almost identical to the Fed rule.

7-3-11:

Illegal Touching

ARTICLE 11. No originally ineligible player while inbounds shall intentionally
touch a legal forward pass until it has touched an opponent or an official (A.R.
5-2-3-I and A.R. 7-3-11-I-III).

PENALTY—Five yards from the previous spot [S16].

[ajmc]

Under the NF code, INTENT is a requirement of both Illegal Touching (as explained above) and both types of an Illegal Pass relevant to this question.

NF: 7-5-2-c, "a pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver."

NF: 7-5-2-d, "A pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time (exception: immediately after receiving a direct hand-to-hand snap).

The question failed to indicate whether, or not, there was an eligible receiver in the vicinity of A77, or whether the pass was intended for A77. Those types of illegal forward passes are judgment calls that MUST include consideration of intent.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

bsaucer, the illegal touching rule in NCAA is almost identical to the Fed rule.

In fact, it's superior, since it explicitly prohibits intentionally touching a forward pass. The NFHS rule mentions "bats, muffs, or catches," which imply intent, but who cares what the ineligible is trying to do? Intentional touching is what we want to prohibit.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by Welpe

IG would be a bigger punishment to A but I suppose it depends if it truly is IG or not.

True. The most reasonable argument would be that he was trying to throw it to somebody, just the "wrong somebody." Therefore, he wasn't trying to throw it away. Conversely, if he just throws it up and A77 runs under it, just because A77 caught it doesn't negate IG.

[tomes1978]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

True. The most reasonable argument would be that he was trying to throw it to somebody, just the "wrong somebody." Therefore, he wasn't trying to throw it away. Conversely, if he just throws it up and A77 runs under it, just because A77 caught it doesn't negate IG.

I disagree, it's IG if you are throwing it to an ineligible reciever.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tomes1978

I disagree it's IG if you are throwing it to an ineligible reciever.

You might wish to reconsider your disagreement, in light of rule 7-5-2(c):

ART. 2 . . . An illegal forward pass is a foul. Illegal forward passes include:
c. A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive
receiver.
PENALTY: intentional grounding (Arts. 2c,d) –(S36) – 5 yards plus loss
of down for (Art. 2b, c, d, e) – (S9).

[tomes1978]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You might wish to reconsider your disagreement, in light of rule 7-5-2(c):

ART. 2 . . . An illegal forward pass is a foul. Illegal forward passes include:
c. A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive
receiver.
PENALTY: intentional grounding (Arts. 2c,d) –(S36) – 5 yards plus loss
of down for (Art. 2b, c, d, e) – (S9).

I agree with you, I just did not use proper punctuation.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tomes1978

I agree with you, I just did not use proper punctuation.

Ha! Sorry, I should have read the post to which you responded!

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by tomes1978

I disagree, it's IG if you are throwing it to an ineligible reciever.

My bad. You are correct. Great example of typing before thinking.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

True. The most reasonable argument would be that he was trying to throw it to somebody, just the "wrong somebody." Therefore, he wasn't trying to throw it away. Conversely, if he just throws it up and A77 runs under it, just because A77 caught it doesn't negate IG.

As mbyron already posted, one of the types of IG is throwing the ball into an area where there are no eligible receivers. Now this is where seeing the play would be helpful. If the quarterback is clearly dumping it to avoid losing yardage and it's clear there were no eligible receivers I think calling IG could be justified here.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

As mbyron already posted, one of the types of IG is throwing the ball into an area where there are no eligible receivers. Now this is where seeing the play would be helpful. If the quarterback is clearly dumping it to avoid losing yardage and it's clear there were no eligible receivers I think calling IG could be justified here.

Seeing the play is critical. If A88, split out a couple of steps on the right side, went downfield 3 steps and cut to the right sideline, as the quick pass was thrown to the left of where A88 cut, and hit A77, you'd have nothing.

No Illegal touching as the contact with A77 was unintentional, no illegal forward pass, as you would have seen the receiver cut and went one way while the passer was expecting him to cut the other way, so you might logically conclude there was no "intent" to incomplete the pass.

This is the type situation where the wing official, or umpire, may have seen the confusion better than the Referee and should provide the Referee with his observation details.