Immaculate Reception.

[Steven Tyler]

What was the reason for the "double touching" rule? Neither the offense or defense could do it if I remember correctly? I never saw it to really serve any purpose of sportsmanship.

[HLin NC]

I never saw it to really serve any purpose of sportsmanship

Had nothing to do with sportsmanship. Once an offensive player touched the ball back then, only he could catch it, unless it was touched by a defensive player, then all A players are eligible, just as now. the NFL eventually rescinded the rule.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

What was the reason for the "double touching" rule? Neither the offense or defense could do it if I remember correctly? I never saw it to really serve any purpose of sportsmanship.

They didn't want it used as a means of passing the ball.

In Canadian football it was allowed as a means of controlling but not advancing a forward pass. So, until about 20 yrs. ago, if one player deflected the ball forward to a teammate who would've been eligible to receive the original, the teammate could still catch it, and the play would be ruled "completed pass followed by offside pass", the point at which the ball was deflected or batted taken as the point of completion of one pass and origin of another, the 2nd being illegal, so loss of down at that point. It's still possible in Canadian football to have a completed forward pass chain with an illegal link somewhere in it, depending on receiver eligibility.

[JRutledge]

I believe in Super Bowl V (Dallas and Baltimore) had a double touch controversy as well. It was obviously a silly rule for sure and hard to officiate.

Peace

[ump33]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I believe in Super Bowl V (Dallas and Baltimore) had a double touch controversy as well. It was obviously a silly rule for sure and hard to officiate.

Peace

Your are correct ... touched by Colts reciever Eddie Hinton (?), then tipped by Dallas DB Mel Renfro then caught & ran for a TD by #88 John Mackey.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

They didn't want it used as a means of passing the ball.

In Canadian football it was allowed as a means of controlling but not advancing a forward pass. So, until about 20 yrs. ago, if one player deflected the ball forward to a teammate who would've been eligible to receive the original, the teammate could still catch it, and the play would be ruled "completed pass followed by offside pass", the point at which the ball was deflected or batted taken as the point of completion of one pass and origin of another, the 2nd being illegal, so loss of down at that point. It's still possible in Canadian football to have a completed forward pass chain with an illegal link somewhere in it, depending on receiver eligibility.

Play: Offensive lineman legally is in the end zone, about 5 yards deep, by means of blocking an opponent. The defensive player leaves, rendering the offensive lineman "open". The passer, now being chased, throws the ball to an eligible player who is 1 yard deep into the end zone. The ball tips off of the eligible receiver and proceeds to the ineligible receiver, who catches the ball.

Ruling?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Play: Offensive lineman legally is in the end zone, about 5 yards deep, by means of blocking an opponent. The defensive player leaves, rendering the offensive lineman "open". The passer, now being chased, throws the ball to an eligible player who is 1 yard deep into the end zone. The ball tips off of the eligible receiver and proceeds to the ineligible receiver, who catches the ball.

Ruling?

Forward pass complete at point of origin of offside pass, touchdown. The offside pass is not penalized, even though it is not one of the explicit exceptions to the occurrence of an offside pass.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Forward pass complete at point of origin of offside pass, touchdown. The offside pass is not penalized, even though it is not one of the explicit exceptions to the occurrence of an offside pass.

So a guy is credited with a touchdown without catching the ball.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Had nothing to do with sportsmanship. Once an offensive player touched the ball back then, only he could catch it, unless it was touched by a defensive player, then all A players are eligible, just as now. the NFL eventually rescinded the rule.

Sorry, I meant meant unsportsmanship.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by ump33

Your are correct ... touched by Colts reciever Eddie Hinton (?), then tipped by Dallas DB Mel Renfro then caught & ran for a TD by #88 John Mackey.

I know that one for sure. Super Bowl V. Cowboys also recovered a fumble near their goal line that was given to Colts. Cowboys had four turnovers I believe. Jim O'Brien kicks a field goal at the very end of the game. Bob Lilly throws his helmet so far, and hard, the pads in it go flying. Old fan of both the Dallas Texans and the Cowboys in the Cotton Bowl.

I just thought the Harris play would be the one everyone remembers most

BTW~Eddie Hinton #33 I believe from Oklahoma Mel Renfro #30 from Oregon, drafted as running back, but shifted to CB, and became a HOF. Trivia for ya.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

They didn't want it used as a means of passing the ball.

In Canadian football it was allowed as a means of controlling but not advancing a forward pass. So, until about 20 yrs. ago, if one player deflected the ball forward to a teammate who would've been eligible to receive the original, the teammate could still catch it, and the play would be ruled "completed pass followed by offside pass", the point at which the ball was deflected or batted taken as the point of completion of one pass and origin of another, the 2nd being illegal, so loss of down at that point. It's still possible in Canadian football to have a completed forward pass chain with an illegal link somewhere in it, depending on receiver eligibility.

I thought an illegal forward lateral would cover the part of the double touch if the receiver actually had control of the ball. It baffles me to a certain extent, but I wonder if anything like a double touch has ever happened on a Hail Mary. I could see an illegal tip to another offensive player in this situation happening.

We would work on tip drills on defense back in the day. Doubtful double touching wasn't a high school rule [if ever] then I suppose.

I like the old NFL films when they show Harley (?) of the 49'ers throwing the elbow to the head making a tackle, and knocking the runner unconsciene. You also had to physically have the ball carrier on the ground for them to be considered down at one point also.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I like the old NFL films when they show Harley (?) of the 49'ers throwing the elbow to the head making a tackle, and knocking the runner unconsciene. You also had to physically have the ball carrier on the ground for them to be considered down at one point also.

No, you didn't have to do that, but I know what you mean. The old tackle rule in both rugby and American football was that the ball carrier had to be "so held" so as either to be taken to the ground that way (i.e. something other than hands or feet touching the ground) or have his progress stopped. The difference with the present rule is the "held" condition on being brought to the ground, in that merely knocking the ballcarrier down wasn't sufficient; the hold had to be maintained all the way to the ground. If the ballcarrier was already on the ground without contact, you still had to establish contact sufficient to hold him down, so some hits that look like unnecessary roughness now really weren't under the rules of that time -- of course, some were.

All the major codes still allow the "standing" tackle, so the only difference is in the part related to the grounded runner. NCAA was first to change that, in the 1930s (so Fed inherited it), to not requiring any contact with an opponent. (Then they had to make exceptions for place kick holding and then fake place kick holding.) NFL never went that far (except insofar as the voluntary "quarterback flop"), but in the 1950s changed it to require contact that resulted in the ballcarrier's going down. At some point, I don't know when, that started being practically interpreted as the runner's being down even if he just contacted an opponent on the runner's way down, i.e. no causal requirement, but they didn't actually change the rules to reflect that for decades -- until the 1990s, I think. NFL is like that frequently, carrying things in their rule book for a long time after their officiating practice changes.

Rugby Union changed their rule on what a tackle was too a few times in the latter half of the 20th Century. The ground tackle eventually came back to what it'd been before, while the provision for a standing tackle can be seen in today's rule regarding when a maul becomes dead.