Who thinks these two are IG??

[maven]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Part of the rule is the ability of the QB. It has nothing to do with someone being in the area, it has to do with what he is trying to do.

'Ability' is not in the rule, it's a "factor to consider" mentioned in a case play.

7.5.2 SITUATION C:

Quarterback A1 drops back to pass and while under a good defensive rush, he throws the ball forward:

(a) at the feet of two onrushing defensive linemen; or
(b) 15 yards behind A3 who has run a deep post pattern; or
(c) 5 to 10 feet over the head of eligible A3 who lined up near a sideline.

RULING: Illegal forward pass in (a). In (b) and (c), the referee will have to judge whether the pass was intentionally thrown incomplete or whether A1 was simply unable to throw the ball close to A3.

COMMENT: Some factors to look for in making an intentional-grounding decision are absence of eligible offensive receivers in the area and the "dumping" to avoid loss of distance. The ability and skill of the passer and the pressure of the defense are also factors to consider. (7-5-2d)

There are 2 mistakes here:
(1) we should not use "ability" as the primary criterion of IG. The main question, as stated in the COMMENT, is the absence of eligibles and whether the QB is dumping the ball. By those measures, the play in question is IG.
(2) The "ability" question concerns the QB's capacity to play through contact or make a throw while scrambling. In the play in question, ability doesn't enter the matter: there is no contact, and he's clearly dumping the ball. I say "clearly" because the ball goes right where he throws it.

Sure, some of this is judgment. But there's good judgment and bad judgment, and the concepts in play in the rule do not warrant just any call in these cases. IMO, these plays are not borderline.

[bigjohn]

Pretty sure only Texas and Mass play under NCAA rules.
You are right though it was played in AR. The guy that posted it is from LA.

Sorry I should have just said, in NFHS rule set.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by asdf

Ok.... I don't agree based on the prior throw, but that's the beauty of what we do... Different viewpoints, different judgments...

I'm pretty liberal in allowing QBs flexibility on dumping the ball in HS. I agree with JRut on this one. I could reasonably say he was trying to get it to those receivers downfield but didn't have the arm to do it. If he was truly grounding it he could have thrown it OOB like he did on the first one or more quickly into the ground. There was plenty of room to truly dump it.

But you are definitely supported by rule to call this IG and should not get downgraded for doing it if evaluated. If I'm your supervisor though I say let this go.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by maven

'Ability' is not in the rule, it's a "factor to consider" mentioned in a case play.

It is apart of the rule because the interpretations says it is to be considered. Maybe that is semantics, but that is how it is officiated before making this call.

Originally Posted by maven

There are 2 mistakes here:
(1) we should not use "ability" as the primary criterion of IG. The main question, as stated in the COMMENT, is the absence of eligibles and whether the QB is dumping the ball. By those measures, the play in question is IG.
(2) The "ability" question concerns the QB's capacity to play through contact or make a throw while scrambling. In the play in question, ability doesn't enter the matter: there is no contact, and he's clearly dumping the ball. I say "clearly" because the ball goes right where he throws it.

Sure, some of this is judgment. But there's good judgment and bad judgment, and the concepts in play in the rule do not warrant just any call in these cases. IMO, these plays are not borderline.

I have a problem with what you are saying philosophically. For one you say that something is not apart of the rule, but you quote the exact thing I am referencing and how the rule will be adjudicated. If a coach asks me about why I did not make an IG call, I would reference what you just said which the casebook are the rules too. They are just interpretations of those rules and give detailed examples of how the rule will be applied.

I am sorry the ability does matter in this second play because making a throw on the run is not easy and high school players often cannot do that very well. There are D1 big time QBs that cannot make those throws very well. I am not going to penalize a QB or thrower because they cannot throw and accurate pass down the field on the run. I see those kinds of passes like in this video all the time and often they are nearly intercepted.

Peace

[OKREF]

IG on both plays.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by maven

There are 2 mistakes here:
(1) we should not use "ability" as the primary criterion of IG.

There's no PRIMARY criterion, and ability comes into play as much as anything else.

The key is -- reading the mind of QB, what was he TRYING to do. Was he trying to avoid the loss of yardage from the pending sack? Or was he trying to complete a pass. As Jeff said, inability to do what you're trying to do doesn't make it grounding. INTENT makes it grounding.

I believe I'd have IG on the 2nd play, but I can't see all of the receivers and what they were doing --- if it appeared to me, from behind the QB, that he was TRYING to throw to someone, and simply failed, I would not have IG.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is apart of the rule because the interpretations says it is to be considered. Maybe that is semantics, but that is how it is officiated before making this call.



I have a problem with what you are saying philosophically. For one you say that something is not apart of the rule, but you quote the exact thing I am referencing and how the rule will be adjudicated. If a coach asks me about why I did not make an IG call, I would reference what you just said which the casebook are the rules too. They are just interpretations of those rules and give detailed examples of how the rule will be applied.

I am sorry the ability does matter in this second play because making a throw on the run is not easy and high school players often cannot do that very well. There are D1 big time QBs that cannot make those throws very well. I am not going to penalize a QB or thrower because they cannot throw and accurate pass down the field on the run. I see those kinds of passes like in this video all the time and often they are nearly intercepted.

Peace

There's a reason he's throwing on the run -- the pressure he's under.

Part of the decision making process is understanding that the ball may not get to a receiver -- but it's expected to get *near* a receiver.

First play is obviously IG.

Personally, I think in the second play a receiver is near enough where I wouldn't mark down either call if I was evaluating the crew.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

There's a reason he's throwing on the run -- the pressure he's under.

Of course. But players are under pressure often and still throw the ball to a receiver. It is not impossible to do so and some times those are planned to make a throw on the run or while moving.

Originally Posted by Rich

Part of the decision making process is understanding that the ball may not get to a receiver -- but it's expected to get *near* a receiver.

And "near" is going to be subjective. I just do not expect a HS QB to be Tom Brady or Peyton Manning on their throws either. And it looked like the second pass was a duck that could not fly.

Peace

[rockyroad]

In the first play, the QB is rolling to his left and has to throw across his body yet still manages to throw the ball about 30 yards downfireld and another 10 yards out of bounds. In the second, rolling to his right and only throws the ball about 14 yards. Not sure how you factor "ability" into not calling IG on the second when he has clearly demonstrated the ability to throw the ball down the field.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

In the first play, the QB is rolling to his left and has to throw across his body yet still manages to throw the ball about 30 yards downfireld and another 10 yards out of bounds. In the second, rolling to his right and only throws the ball about 14 yards. Not sure how you factor "ability" into not calling IG on the second when he has clearly demonstrated the ability to throw the ball down the field.

You don't think the 10-yards out of bounds part adds some credibility to the idea that this kid is not incredibly accurate on the run?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You don't think the 10-yards out of bounds part adds some credibility to the idea that this kid is not incredibly accurate on the run?

He hit his mark. Looks to me that his intention was to throw it 10 yds out of bounds.

After watching the clip again, I could be sold on the second one that he was trying to throw to the receivers, even if they are 10 plus yds away from where the throw landed.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Pretty sure only Texas and Mass play under NCAA rules.

This is referring to the state associations. It's always possible a school is not a member; mine wasn't, for instance.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

He hit his mark. Looks to me that his intention was to throw it 10 yds out of bounds.

After watching the clip again, I could be sold on the second one that he was trying to throw to the receivers, even if they are 10 plus yds away from where the throw landed.

Ten yards away is not the far off if you ask me. And if it is short that is not unusual for a HS QB. Even if he was dumping the throw, he made it look good enough for me. The rules do not say how close you have to be, but to me based off of experience, if a QB gets it that close, I am not going to nitpick his intent. I thought the throw was at least in the direction of a receiver and that is mostly good enough for me.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You don't think the 10-yards out of bounds part adds some credibility to the idea that this kid is not incredibly accurate on the run?

Seems like pretty much everyone is saying that the first is IG - that he purposefully threw it out there. To then turn around and say that the second isn't IG because the kid can't throw (doesn't have the ability) just doesn't make sense to me. Shrug...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Seems like pretty much everyone is saying that the first is IG - that he purposefully threw it out there. To then turn around and say that the second isn't IG because the kid can't throw (doesn't have the ability) just doesn't make sense to me. Shrug...

The first throw was in the sidelines with almost no strength on the throw and no one to throw to. He did not throw the ball a long way and he was not trying to be accurate. The second throw was in the field of play and in the direction of a receiver which is obvious or one would not have come back into the picture. Now was he dumping the throw? Maybe, but if it was not flagged before, why not do the same thing again?

And there is enough doubt on the second throw that people here are not saying this is an obvious IG call on the second throw. So much so that they said if they were evaluating they would not even say anything either way. That is telling to me when on a play like this if there is doubt, it is not a foul.

Peace