New IFP Exception

[bama_stripes]

Does the new Exception to 7-5-2 require the pass to reach the NZ in flight, or can it bounce/roll there and still qualify?

[CalhounLJ]

In flight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jgf6]

What if B blocks the pass in flight and it doesn't reach the NZ? Is that still considered Intentional Grounding?

[dammitbobby]

Does the new Exception to 7-5-2 require the pass to reach the NZ in flight, or can it bounce/roll there and still qualify?

Assuming that NHFS is similar in definitions, the reason why, is once a forward pass touches the ground, it is a dead ball. 

[CalhounLJ]

What if B blocks the pass in flight and it doesn't reach the NZ? Is that still considered Intentional Grounding?

No. If b touches it in or behind the line, the IFP restriction is gone. This rule didn’t affect that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[theride]

No where in the rule does it say that if the passer is contacted by the defender, the ball now does not have to make it back to the LOS.  Some states are saying to ignore where the pass ends up if the passer is contacted.  This goes against the rule. This could be added to the rule in the future, but the way rule is written, contact on the passer is not in there.

[CalhounLJ]

No where in the rule does it say that if the passer is contacted by the defender, the ball now does not have to make it back to the LOS.  Some states are saying to ignore where the pass ends up if the passer is contacted.  This goes against the rule. This could be added to the rule in the future, but the way rule is written, contact on the passer is not in there.

I agree. Contact to the PASSER is not a factor. Contact to the PASS is and has always been.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

I agree. Contact to the PASSER is not a factor. Contact to the PASS is and has always been.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where are we going with this?  A critical word "INTENTIONAL" is still part of NFHS 7-5-2.d & e, which seems to negate passes that are EITHER caused by contact to the pass, or contact to the passer which effect the flight of the ball.   

[ncwingman]

I *intended* to throw the ball over those mountains. Gravity is a harsh mistress that caused it to land short of the neutral zone...

[Ralph Damren]

....and remember, if the pass goes airborne to grandma -sitting in the last row of the bleachers- it's OK as long as grandma is sitting BEYOND the LOS.  Note page 99 of the Officials Manual for further details.

[AlUpstateNY]

....and remember, if the pass goes airborne to grandma -sitting in the last row of the bleachers- it's OK as long as grandma is sitting BEYOND the LOS.  Note page 99 of the Officials Manual for further details.

Yet another reason to look forward to receiving the 2022 Rule, Case & Official Manuals. Page 99, in the 2020/21manual i concerned with "Equipment Guidelines".

[HLinNC]

....and remember, if the pass goes airborne to grandma -sitting in the last row of the bleachers- it's OK as long as grandma is sitting BEYOND the LOS

It was, what 2-3 season ago, that was a POE not to do.  The times they are a changin'.

[CalhounLJ]

Where are we going with this?  A critical word "INTENTIONAL" is still part of NFHS 7-5-2.d & e, which seems to negate passes that are EITHER caused by contact to the pass, or contact to the passer which effect the flight of the ball.

I don’t know where you’re going with this, but I’m going with the fact that if a pass in flight is batted by B in or behind the neutral zone, you can’t have a flag for intentional grounding if the ball doesn’t reach the line of scrimmage.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PABJNR]

I think philosophically there can be IG with contact, but that comes down to judgement.  For instance if the QB doesn’t see the contact coming and it affects his throw, i would likely pass on the IG.  If there is contact prior to the pass, for instance the defender has began to tackle the QB and he chucks it, there better be an eligible i the vicinity or he is outside the free blocking zone and the ball makes it to the LOS.  Point is I think touching by B negates IG, but contact does not always negate, but it could. 

[Ralph Damren]

I think philosophically there can be IG with contact, but that comes down to judgement.  For instance if the QB doesn’t see the contact coming and it affects his throw, i would likely pass on the IG.  If there is contact prior to the pass, for instance the defender has began to tackle the QB and he chucks it, there better be an eligible i the vicinity or he is outside the free blocking zone and the ball makes it to the LOS.  Point is I think touching by B negates IG, but contact does not always negate, but it could.

WELL SAID !!   

[ilyazhito]

If I'm not mistaken, that is also the rule at the NCAA level. 2-19-2-b has the pass being ruled incomplete if the ball falls out of the passer's hand as the arm is moving forward.  In that case, there is no intentional grounding. The difference is when the passer throws the ball away with no eligible receiver nearby and he is not outside the tackle box/Free Blocking Zone. But those are two different cases.

[CalhounLJ]

xx

[ilyazhito]

What if B blocks the pass in flight and it doesn't reach the NZ? Is that still considered Intentional Grounding?

It is not. NCAA approved ruling 7-3-2-VIII states that "Without the batting, the ball would have landed beyond the neutral zone, so A10 has satisfied the spirit of the rule". I would not be surprised if NFHS would enter a similar play into their casebook now that the rule has changed to be more similar to the college rule, minus the requirement that it is the original receiver of the snap who throws the ball away.