Illegal Batting?

[stripes1977]

Guess this will just be one of those situations that I'll have to rule on at the spur of the moment if it happens. But this discussion will defnitely weigh in to my decision! Whether I agree with the action or not, it wouldn't be fair to penalize a team based on my philosophy of the play.

[JMN]

I've read the posts and agree on your guys' ruling.

I've looked at the NCAA rules and don't see how this play would be illegal. It's not a bat by rule; or a forward pass; or a catch by rule; so I would call it a muff and rule it as legal.

I do agree with Mike that this would be a difficult play to execute, but very interesting.

[Theisey]

There have been play senarios like this in prior years (old CCA exams or old spring tests) and the result as I recall was a live ball because the ball status is that of a grounded backward pass.

I may look around for it.

[Bob M.]

If you take a look at the Federation definitions of "catch", "player possession", and "pass" and can follow the thread, you can see that movement of the ball forward by A2 cannot be a forward pass because passing requires player possession which in turn requires that he has obtained control of a ball that was (a) snapped or handed to him [not!], or caught or recovered by him [again, not!]. So what is it? In the NCAA game that Mike and others referred to, the pass was controlled in the air by B1-not A1. He realized that if he held it, he would land OOB and not complete the interception. So he tossed it forward to teammate B2 who was standing in bounds. B2 caught it and was tackled shortly thereafter. I think it was a Big 12 crew of officials led by John Bible that (after some discussion) ruled it an illegal forward pass and awarded the ball to B at the spot where B1 controlled it minus the 5 yards for the penalty. The NCAA after the game said that the crew was mistaken. This should have been ruled a legal interception by B2. B1's control and subsequent toss should have been interpreted as nothing more than a bat of a forward pass in flight which is legal in NCAA (and also NFHS) code. However, if the Fed came up with the same interpretation, A2 would have effectively 'batted' a backward pass forward -- a foul! Since we're talking about the Federation here, I can't even venture a guess as to what they would say about this play.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Bob M.
If you take a look at the Federation definitions of "catch", "player possession", and "pass" and can follow the thread, you can see that movement of the ball forward by A2 cannot be a forward pass because passing requires player possession which in turn requires that he has obtained control of a ball that was (a) snapped or handed to him [not!], or caught or recovered by him [again, not!]. So what is it? In the NCAA game that Mike and others referred to, the pass was controlled in the air by B1-not A1. He realized that if he held it, he would land OOB and not complete the interception. So he tossed it forward to teammate B2 who was standing in bounds. B2 caught it and was tackled shortly thereafter. I think it was a Big 12 crew of officials led by John Bible that (after some discussion) ruled it an illegal forward pass and awarded the ball to B at the spot where B1 controlled it minus the 5 yards for the penalty. The NCAA after the game said that the crew was mistaken. This should have been ruled a legal interception by B2. B1's control and subsequent toss should have been interpreted as nothing more than a bat of a forward pass in flight which is legal in NCAA (and also NFHS) code. However, if the Fed came up with the same interpretation, A2 would have effectively 'batted' a backward pass forward -- a foul! Since we're talking about the Federation here, I can't even venture a guess as to what they would say about this play.

Thanks for clarifying the play for me. So the NCAA called the "catch and throw" a "bat"?

That sure changes how I might interpret the play in question then and I think that is the question stripes1977 was asking.

Thanks for posting this. Now I am just confused.

[JasonTX]

It appears this is concerning NFHS but for NCAA it would be considered illegal batting a backwards pass. The exact definition of a bat is: Batting the ball is intentionally striking it OR changing its direction with a hand or arm. (whether he struck it or controled it in the air and flung it forward) by rule he changed its direction so therefore it is a bat.

[stripes1977]

Back to square one! Well, at least my small group was running in the same circles that we are here.

[stripes1977]

The NCAA definition of batting is more or less what I was talking about when suggesting the NFHS definition be reworded. Thanks Jason!

[ABoselli]

I think it is neither a bat, nor a catch (by definition), but it more not a catch, than not a bat. If the player never alights in the field of play, it is not a catch. He is not trying to secure possession (that comes with a catch), so it is not a muff. All I'm left with is a bat (it's got to be something - we all saw it!)and he can't bat a backward pass forward. Illegal bat. Ball remains live even after grounded.

If he were to have done the same thing, only in the other direction (i.e. toward his own goal line) we'd have nothing. Still live ball.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by stripes1977
Back to square one! Well, at least my small group was running in the same circles that we are here.

Yep. Sure looks like it.

All this talk of the NCAA rule is making me reconsider how I would rule this play.