Way to intentionally ground legally?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Is that actually judged? I ask because there've been threads recently in forums about what a team does if they want to spike the ball to stop the clock but never practice a hand-to-hand snap. I suggested that easier than practicing a C-QB exchange would be having the blocking back turn around and you'd hit him in the hands or chest with a downward moving forward pass that he would let bounce back off him to the ground.

It sounds to me like someone is trying to be cute. The problem with doing that you would expect officials to be on the same board with that thinking. The rule is what it is and if officials feel you are trying to be cute to do something with clear intent, I do not see that working very well.

Peace

[HLin NC]

Stop feeding the troll.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

May I suggest, Robert, that according to NFHS Rules, a snap is a "backwards pass" (NF2-41-1). A "pass" being incomplete, only refers to a "forward pass (legal or illegal) (NF: 7-5-5), A snapped ball bouncing off the chest of a set back, would be a "loose ball" and remain alive (NF: 2-1-3).

That's not the situation I meant. I meant a single wing snap thrown to a back a few yards behind the line, followed by a forward pass towards a back playing close to the line. Coaches were arguing that it was worthwhile to save an extra second or so by practicing a hand-to-hand snap just for the purpose of spiking the ball, rather than the previous practice of stationing a receiver close to a sideline and throwing over his head. I suggested the incomplete pass to the blocking back instead. A hand-to-hand snap takes more practice than you'd think, and if you don't use it as an ordinary part of your offense, it runs a risk of loss of possession.

Regarding a forward pass to yourself, being deliberately incompleted. This would be a call, based on the judgment of the covering official as to violating (NF:7-5-d or e), the main criteria of which is based on perceived intent, in the exclusive judgment of the covering official.

I never saw before that 7-5-2 d&e, in Fed's case, were separate criteria. Then when it came to Fed, because of the "e" clause, it doesn't make sense to contrive easier, but hence more obvious, ways to intentionally make an incomplete pass. (I wonder why they even need 7-5-2 d, then.) This copy lists those clauses as an editorial change in 2011. Was it really just editorial? Have I not noticed it previously because it didn't always say that?

How about in other codes? Is it a judgment of intent in all of them?