|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 01:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
NF but curious if NCAA is different:
A 3/23 at A-2 yard line. A7 drops back to pass. He is under a heavy rush and turns around to run further back in his endzone when he is contacted from behind by B95. Knowing he is going down, A7 simply throws the pass over his head toward the direction of the line. It is obvious he is getting rid of the ball to avoid the sack and the safety. It lands at the heals of eligible A32, but A32 had no inclination the pass was ever near him because he was blocking during the entire down. How do you rule?
__________________
Mike Sears 
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 01:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
NF 7-5-2d...
"IFP... a pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time." I believe the case book has a similar play and states that the referee has to use his judgement on whether the QB intentionally threw the ball incomplete. On this play, I'd throw the flag. It's a no-brainer if there is no eligible in the vicinity.
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 01:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
REPLY: Mike, In Federation, I don't really think there's any other ruling than a legal incomplete pass. Remember that the requirement is that the pass must not be "...intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver." Since the receiver was there (whether or not he was expecting the pass) I believe it's legal.
The NCAA rule is worded a little differently. It infers that to be legal, an eligible must have a "...reasonable opportunity to catch the pass." It also goes on to say that when in question, you are to rule that he did have reasonable opportunity. I've always interpreted "reasonable opportunity to catch the pass" as a function of distance from it as opposed to his awareness of the pass. In which case, I'd rule the play legal in an NCAA game as well. The ARs use the phrase "reasonable opportunity" exclusively in their case plays without any explanation of what exactly they mean by it, so If there is an interpretation to the contrary, maybe Mr. Heisey can set us straight. Also, be aware that if the QB is 5 or more yards closer to the sideline than the position of the ball at the snap, he can "dump" it by just making sure that the pass crosses the NZ. I'm assuming that in your play, A32's block was behind the NZ so that the question of OPI is not significant.
__________________
Bob M.
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 02:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree completely with Bob. If we start inferring whether a reciever was expecting the pass and ruling that way we open up another can of worms. How many times have we seen a reciever not expecting a pass on a hot route??? I also am of the opinion that maybe the QB should get a little credit for getting it that close to someone with his back turned
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 02:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Intentionally thrown incomplete in an area not occupied by an eligible reciever" is only one of the illegal passes. The one that should apply here is to save loss of yardage or time. He's definitely trying to save loss of yardage here - he's about to get sacked for a safety. There is no reasonable expectation that this pass will be completed (just like the one in the case book where the QB sails it 10 yards over the head of an eligible near the sideline while under a heavy rush. It's an illegal pass from the end zone, a safety whether accepted or not.
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 02:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the defense needs the credit here, NOT the QB.
The post said "it is obvious he is getting rid of the ball to avoid the sack and the safety. It lands at the heals of eligible A32, but A32 had no inclination the pass was ever near him because he was blocking during the entire down." Sounds like "intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage" to me.
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 02:38pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Mike Sears
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 02:49pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 03:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is interesting getting everyone's opinions on this. When I posted this, I was thinking that I'd call this an illegal forward pass. I believe the spirit of the passing rule is that Team A MUST make a good faith attempt to throw the pass to an eligible receiver. There is nothing in the rules that states a team must make a good faith attempt to actually catch the ball.
In this case, I don't think A7 is making a good faith attempt to throw the pass to an eligible. I'm getting more confused on how I would rule with every post I read. How about this. We rule forward progress was stopped and don't have any flags 
__________________
Mike Sears
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 03:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I still side with Bob, unless of course progress was stopped :O.... This is just another of the many plays that must be seen to be believed...er I mean ruled upon... But I am pretty liberal here, if he gets it that close to an eligible reciever, I am going to give the offense the benefit of the doubt.....
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 03:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed Jun 25, 2003, 03:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike, If I read this accurately, are you saying that A7 when he "turns around to run further back in his endzone" is facing his end line and has his back to the field of play?
I would have to be there, but if he has no vision of where the ball is going and throws it over his head (backwards) to avoid getting sacked, then I would rule that this was done to avoid losing yardage and penalize him appropriately. It may be legal according to the rules, but his intent is obvious.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
