Throw out-of-bounds pass negates ineligible receiver?

[Reffing Rev.]

Not just a commonly accepted philosophy, one printed in the CCA manual.

[ricknau]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

Not just a commonly accepted philosophy, one printed in the CCA manual.

Edit: Sorry guys I need to learn to read better. Ignore the original relpy below. So it's not a rule but a "philosophy". How do philosophies apply? You can apply a philosophy when there is no specific rule? My goodness I never thought reffing went to such depths. Hat's off to all you guys! I promise to never yell at a ref again! :-) I'll download the rules (and philosphies) when I get home to see what I can learn.

==========================
original reply:
So it is the rule? Wow. Kudos the to refs. I have to say though that I don't understand the logic. Apparently throwing the ball away is not considered a pass. Seems like there might be ways to "game the system". Maybe QB rolls out with intention to run having linemen down field. If the play collapses and looks like it will be a loss then toss the ball out of bounds to at least negate the loss with an "incompete pass".

Thanks Rev for the answer.

BTW, I'm not impartial in the inquiry. Diehard Seminole. Glad to have it cleared up, in my mind at least.
==========================

[jTheUmp]

As Welpe said, it's a commonly accepted philosophy rather than an official 'rule'... the theory is that there's no advantage gained by Team A in this situation.

I'll leave out the "but what if there's a foul on the defense during the down?" wailing and gnashing of teeth for another day.

[Welpe]

Philosophies are developed around existing rules with the purpose of creating consistency in enforcement and helping to ensure the game is called as expected. A more well known example of a philosophy is that holding should not be called if it has no material effect on the play. While a player holding a defender well away from the point of attack violates the written rule, the established spirit of the rule says that this should not be called a foul because there was not an advantage gained.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

As Welpe said, it's a commonly accepted philosophy rather than an official 'rule'... the theory is that there's no advantage gained by Team A in this situation.

If that theory is correct, it would also apply to any other forward pass that goes beyond the neutral zone before becoming incomplete. Now that I think about it, allowing the option of a penalty for ineligibles downfield on an incomplete pass does seem like an extra bite of the apple. If the defense defended successfully against completion of the pass, what advantage did team A gain by ineligible receivers downfield?