Who thinks these two are IG??

[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

[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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Adam

Does anyone know if Arkansas high schools play with NCAA rules? If not, that's a pretty big field position issue on that free kick return.

No, they use NFHS rules.

Football

Both passes are IG under NFHS.

[Welpe]

I'd have IG on the second one under NCAA. There's no receiver even remotely in the area.

I think the kickoff was just botched, either the WH had a brain fart or didn't know the rule.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Peyton Page - Highlight Videos, Schedule & Roster - Hudl


not my game

This must be a different rule set. Kicks can't be run out of the end zone in FED

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

This must be a different rule set. Kicks can't be run out of the end zone in FED

Welcome to the thread...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Welcome to the thread...

That sounded like John Adam's response to a fan about officiating.

Peace

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Welcome to the thread...

Good to be here