|
Sun Aug 13, 2000, 09:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
Re the new IG rule:
3d and 10 at the 50. QB A8 rolls out more than 5 yards laterally from position of the ball at the snap. Under great pressure, he flips the ball forward from the A42 in order to avoid the sack. It strike tackle A75 in the back shoulder at the A 45 and then continues on in the air to the B48 where it falls to the ground. There were no eligible receivers anywhere near the B48. Is this IG or not and why? 
|
|
Fri Aug 25, 2000, 11:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
My logic at this time of night says that it would be a legal play because the QB was more than 5 yards from the position of the ball at the snap, and even though the ball hit A75 in the back (no longer illegal), the ball first hit the ground beyond the neutral zone.
|
|
Sat Aug 26, 2000, 01:13am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The requirements under the new rule is that 1) the QB is more than 5 yds to either side of the position of the snap, 2) it was thrown to save loss of yardage or conserve time, and 3) the pass is thrown beyond the LOS. By definition, because the pass was touched (legally in this case) behind the line, then the pass did not cross the LOS (2-19-3a). Ruling: IG.
|
|
Sat Aug 26, 2000, 09:22am
|
|||
|
|||
|
My chapter discussed this during our rules interpretation back in July and we agree that this is IG (same reasons as AMAN posted).
Rom Gilberts rules bulletins for Intentional Grounding posted back on 20 July discuss this and play situation #2 is your play. Ruling is Incomplete illegal forward pass (IG)
|
|
Mon Sep 04, 2000, 02:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The problem is the rule says "land beyond the NZ", it does not say "crosses the NZ." Looks like down here in Texas we are going to go with the "landing" and if it lands beyond, even if touched behind, we are not going to flag for IG.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
