Enforcement Options for Illegal Forward Pass

[maven]

Originally Posted by PocketSidewalk

Can anyone else think of a reason the offended team might want to decline the distance penalty of an illegal incomplete forward pass? (Other than sheer kindness...or pity.) Is there a potential situation that I'm overlooking?

How about this:

4/10 @ A10, 15 seconds to play, B is losing by a point. QB runs to the A11 near the sideline and throws a pass complete to A88 @ A25, 3 seconds remain on the clock.

B should (1) accept the IFP but might (2) decline the yardage penalty. Why decline it? The spot of the foul will put the ball on a hash mark, and the angle for their kicker might be improved by kicking it from the 11 rather than the 6.

[Robert Goodman]

I can't determine this with any document I can access right now, but I strongly suspect this is legacy language. Either it was put in (1) before there was a more general provision allowing the distance (portion of a) penalty to be declined for any foul, or (2) at a time when certain cases of batting the ball would've been classified as illegal passes and hence the pass could be occurring from some point other than the end of a run. In the case of 1, it would've been there to complete coverage of cases, because the rules state how to proceed after an incomplete legal forward pass but not an illegal one (other than via penalty).

[bisonlj]

My first thought is it is clarifying what would happen in the unlikely event the penalty was declined. Some might think "incomplete pass" and go to the previous spot.

This might also go with the premise that an illegal forward pass in the end zone would result in a safety regardless of what the defense chooses.

Let's say it's 4th and 10 at the A5 and A is punting with a 4-point lead and 20 seconds left on the clock. The punter bobbles the snap and rather than trying to kick it he attempts to throw it before he's tackled. But there is no eligible receiver in the area so the R drops a flag for IG. Without this language, B might decline the foul thinking they'll get the ball at the A5 with a chance for a TD. But since declining the penalty gives A the ball at the spot of the illegal pass, it would be safety either way.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

My first thought is it is clarifying what would happen in the unlikely event the penalty was declined. Some might think "incomplete pass" and go to the previous spot.

This might also go with the premise that an illegal forward pass in the end zone would result in a safety regardless of what the defense chooses.

Let's say it's 4th and 10 at the A5 and A is punting with a 4-point lead and 20 seconds left on the clock. The punter bobbles the snap and rather than trying to kick it he attempts to throw it before he's tackled. But there is no eligible receiver in the area so the R drops a flag for IG. Without this language, B might decline the foul thinking they'll get the ball at the A5 with a chance for a TD. But since declining the penalty gives A the ball at the spot of the illegal pass, it would be safety either way.

IG and IFP are two different things. Declining IG would, in fact, give B the ball at the A5.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

IG and IFP are two different things.

Not in Fed. In NCAA they can decline and take the ball at the previous spot. In Fed, it will be a safety either way.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

IG and IFP are two different things. Declining IG would, in fact, give B the ball at the A5.

That is not correct. Intentional grounding is a type of illegal forward pass. 7-5-3 applies to all forms of illegal forward pass including those covered in 7-5-2d and 7-5-2e.

[PocketSidewalk]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

IG and IFP are two different things. Declining IG would, in fact, give B the ball at the A5.

I've always considered IG to be a type of IFP. Rules 7-5-2(d) & (e) and Table 7-5-2 both seem to support that idea.

I realize that IG has a different signal than other other forms of an IFP, but otherwise the rules seem to classify it as an IFP.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by PocketSidewalk

I've always considered IG to be a type of IFP. Rules 7-5-2(d) & (e) and Table 7-5-2 both seem to support that idea.

I realize that IG has a different signal than other other forms of an IFP, but otherwise the rules seem to classify it as an IFP.

He's in Texas and they use NCAA rules. What he said is correct under NCAA rules.