Had this discussion with some fellow officials, thought I'd throw it out for some more opinion:

A1 throws a backwards pass to teammate A2, who jumps in the air before "catching" the ball (I put it in quotes because it isn't really a catch by definition, but that's the best word to illustrate) and while still in the air throws the ball forward where it lands on the ground inbounds and then rolls out of bounds.

A backwards pass cannot be batted forward by team A, that's simple enough. However, would you interpret this as batting since the definition of batting is an "intentional act of striking or slapping" the ball and in this case, the ball was not struck or slapped, but rather intentionally thrown without there being any catch, possession, or recovery?

If not illegal batting, then wouldn't this simply be treated as a loose ball?

Personally, I can't see this act being within the spirit of the rules, and if I had this happen I would likely interpret the intentional act as being illegal batting. Any thoughts?

It doesn't meet the definition of a bat so it can't be penalized as such. This is very similar to a play discussed here before where a receiver jumps high, secures the ball, and before he lands, he throws it forward to another team member.

I think I'd have to go with no call unless I hear something different from the NFHS or my state association.

IMHO, if he had enough presence and maybe "control" of the ball (since you said it wasn't really a bat), isn't this really just an incomplete forward pass???

Strike this. :)

<s>Good call. No foul. Just a dead ball. Thanks for pointing that out cmatthews!</s>


It can't be both a forward pass and a backward pass.





[Edited by mikesears on Jun 17th, 2003 at 10:45 AM]

The thought of an incomplete pass came to our minds too, but since the initial pass was backwards and there was no catch or possession by A2, isn't this simply a continuation of the backwards pass, and treated as a fumble?

Believe me I understand this doesn't fall under the definition of batting, which I think could be reworded to include this type of play. Is this just a loophole in the rules? What would keep a team from throwing the ball to the sideline in this manner to gain yardage repeatedly? (Assuming that it is not an incomplete forward pass)

I'm to the point now where I don't really care what the answer is, I would just like to be able to see it for myself! :)

The reason I go with the incomplete forward pass is this. If he has the presence and control to propel the ball forward without it meeting a "bat" definition, then I call it a pass, if it isn't a pass or a bat, then it is a muff and a fumble, but in my mind in order to go forward far enough to gain yardage, he either batted or threw it, one costs yardage the other costs a down...and again in my opinion, I go with the incomplete pass...but yes it must be seen to be "believed" or judged :)

It isn't a forward pass so it isn't dead. If I'd read the original post again I would have realized that. My mistake.

You are correct that this is a "fumble" by rule because an airborn player has not possessed the ball until he lands (paraphrased).

I don't think this is a loophole. A team would need to be very gifted to successfully execute this play a number of times during a single game. The passer would need to be very accurate each time this play was run. The receiver would need to have a natural gift for leaping and timing and would need some natural strength to throw the ball forward for any distance without being in contact with the ground. It seems that there is more of a chance for a misplay than an advantage gained by the offense. Other than the difficult nature of running this play successfully, nothing prevents a team from running it during a game.

A very similar play happened in a college game and the offcials ruled it illegal in that game. (Except is was a forward pass thrown forward by an airborn receiver). Later the NCAA came out with an alternate ruling stating that this type of play is legal. I don't recall or know if the NFHS followed suit on this.





[Edited by mikesears on Jun 17th, 2003 at 10:43 AM]

Ok here we go, more fuel :). If the act is intentional, but there is no possession, which I agree with after I read your post, Mike. Then we do have illegal batting. I don't have my books with me, but isn't batting defined as intentionally striking the ball (paraphrased). Since the offense can't "bat" the ball forward, and it can't be a pass because of the possession issue, if it is intentional, it almost has to be batting by NHFS doesn't it?? Again, just more fuel, and probably picking nits, which I think we all like to do subconsiously or otherwise LOL

:)

Batting is defined as .. "intentionally slapping or striking the ball with the hand or arm". Did the player strike or slap the ball? If so, we have an illegal bat. If he secured the ball and then threw it forward before landing, it can't be a foul for batting (if we want to pick nits). :)

This fits the description of a muff. "A muff is the touching ... of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to secure possession." And muffing the ball isn't illegal.

ok then a muff it is....ok now onto the next down :)

This fits the description of a muff. "A muff is the touching ... of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to secure possession." And muffing the ball isn't illegal.


But in this case, wasn't he successful in his attempt to secure the ball? We just don't have "possession" because he didn't return to the ground.

I had this thought a little while ago: If we treat this as a fumble, then wouldn't this be considered an intentional fumble forward? And without the benefit of having my books in front of me...is this a foul in NFHS?

This is exactly why I wanted to post this on here, because this is the same type of circle we started running into. :)

there is always a penalty for not informing the officiating crew of the intent to run a trick play????? (said with tongue firmly in cheek :))

The key part of the sentence is secure "POSSESSION".

An airborn player does not <b><u>possess</u></b> the ball until he completes a catch. (Rule 2-4-1, Rule 2-32-1)


It isn't a fumble because a player who does not have possession of the ball cannot fumble (Football Fundamental I-5 and Rule 2-18.)

I think I know where you are going, but picking nits again, it isn't illegal to fumble the ball forward. It <u><b>is</b></u> illegal to pass the ball forward when beyond the line of scrimmage. If it happened behind the line of scrimmage, we have an incomplete pass.

An INTENTIONAL fumble forward is a forward pass and treated as such.



[Edited by mikesears on Jun 17th, 2003 at 01:07 PM]

I wasn't sure if intentionally fumbling the ball forward was an NFHS foul or not, so that takes care of that. And I agree that you can't fumble without having possession, and we definitely don't have possession here.

I guess the problem I have with this is that, although difficult, this play could happen (I've seen it in a flag football game) and it just seems outside the spirit of the rules. The potential for gaining a lot of yardage on this play is quite real, or a short first down, and it seems like a team would be "cheating" within the rules.

Is there any room for interpretation of the words "striking" or "slapping" in the definition of batting? Does anyone else feel like this SHOULD be batting, although it doesn't fit in the definition and that maybe the definition of illegal batting could be updated?

Maybe to: an intentional act that advances a backwards pass towards the opponent's goal line. (or something along those lines that removes the specificity of "slapping" or "striking" with the "arm" or "hand"

<b>I guess the problem I have with this is that, although difficult, this play could happen (I've seen it in a flag football game) and it just seems outside the spirit of the rules. The potential for gaining a lot of yardage on this play is quite real...</b>

Football is like the stock market. A risky venture can lead to huge gains or devastating losses. I doubt many teams would design a play like this due to the difficulty in executing it. This is more likely going to be a "made-up-on-the-spot" type play and it is within the current rules.

Here is a play that actually happened in the NCAA. A1 throws a pass to A2 near the sideline. A2 (who is well beyond the line of scrimmage) jumps high to catch the ball. After he secures the ball but before he lands, he pitches the ball forward to teammate A3. Legal or illegal?

The NCAA ruled this a legal play (albeit, after the fact). I realize we aren't talking NCAA rules, but they have similar rules for "catching" the ball, possession, etc.


<b>
. . . or a short first down . . .</b>

I think a team is more likely to use a hard count or a traditional run play in short yardage situations. It would be foolish to CALL this play in those situations. But if a team can successfully execute it, why punish them?


<b>
and it seems like a team would be "cheating" within the rules.

Is there any room for interpretation of the words "striking" or "slapping" in the definition of batting? Does anyone else feel like this SHOULD be batting, although it doesn't fit in the definition and that maybe the definition of illegal batting could be updated?

Maybe to: an intentional act that advances a backwards pass towards the opponent's goal line. (or something along those lines that removes the specificity of "slapping" or "striking" with the "arm" or "hand"</b>

I know you understand this, but batting isn't illegal simply because it moves the ball towards an opponent's goal line. Think about a player who fumbles the ball, and instead of trying to pick it up, he bats the ball out of bounds (either direction). By changing the batting rule, we could alter other rules in the book.

I understand what you are saying but I don't think a team who executes a difficult play successfully should be penalized. They aren't cheating or circumventing a rule. Again, just my two cents. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say.

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.

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.

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.

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 <u>forward</u> 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 <u>bat</u> 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. :)

Bat (NCAA)
 

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.

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

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

I think it is neither a bat, nor a catch (by definition), but it <i>more</i> not a catch, than <i>not</i> 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.

Yep. Sure looks like it. :)

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