Technicalities of touching, loose ball and pass

[dvasques]

This one has been messing a bit with my mind and it might be just overthinking.

2-11-4 touching is any contact with the ball, intentional or not "and it always precedes possession and control." That means you can't have possession and control without touching, not that you can't have touching without consequent possession and control, right?

2-2-3-a Loose ball is a live ball not in player possession during "The interval after a legal forward pass is touched and before it becomes
complete, incomplete or intercepted." So a pass that touches anyone in the field becomes a loose ball but was not one before, by definition, right?

So, 1/10 @ B-40. A1 passes the ball forward and it hits A55's back of the head at B-40. It goes up and backwards and at B-44, A79 punches the ball back and it goes out of bounds at midfield.

I know the touching by A55 is legal 'cause it's not intentional, so no foul.
But now for the overthinking. Is that touching by definition, even though there is no subsequent possession and control? I think so.
And if so, then the punch by A79 is not a foul for illegal bat since he's batting a loose ball backwards. But that is illegal touching.

And finally (again, I said this could all be just overthinking), what 9-4-1-a is saying is that an ineligible player cannot bat a pass in any direction, right?

Sorry, guys, I started thinking about this and talking with some officials around here and all the concepts started getting messed up in my head

[Legacy Zebra]

That means you can't have possession and control without touching, not that you can't have touching without consequent possession and control, right?

Correct. The rule is saying that if you have control or possession, there was touching prior to the control or possession. You can still have touching without possession or control.

In your situation, you are correct that the pass hitting A55 is not a foul because it was not intentional and you are correct that that is touching making the pass a loose ball. You are also correct that A79's action is illegal touching because it is still a forward pass and he is still ineligible because the pass has not touched a Team B player or an official. It is not illegal batting because he batted backward and all players are allowed to bat a loose ball backwards in the field of play.

9-4-1-a is simply an extension of the rule for eligible receivers, it does not affect ineligible receivers either way. Ineligible receivers can bat the loose ball backwards, but an eligible receiver could bat it in any direction because it is still a forward pass.

[Sonofanump]

*missed the can not bat part*

[Kalle]

Is there a ruling on this? Rule 9-4-1-c says "no player shall bat other loose balls forward" (emphasis mine). So, as this is still a forward pass, rule 9-4-1-a governs and the bat by A79 is illegal? To change the play a bit:

1/10 @ B-40. A1 passes the ball forward and it hits A55's back of the head at B-40. It goes up and backwards and at B-44, A79 punches the ball back to prevent B99 from intercepting it. The ball goes out of bounds at midfield.

[dvasques]

Is there a ruling on this? Rule 9-4-1-c says "no player shall bat other loose balls forward" (emphasis mine). So, as this is still a forward pass, rule 9-4-1-a governs and the bat by A79 is illegal? To change the play a bit:

1/10 @ B-40. A1 passes the ball forward and it hits A55's back of the head at B-40. It goes up and backwards and at B-44, A79 punches the ball back to prevent B99 from intercepting it. The ball goes out of bounds at midfield.

That's my issue... 9-4-1-a says "While a pass is in flight, only a player who is eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction" To me, that means no ineligible player may bat a pass in any direction

[ElvisLives]

That's my issue... 9-4-1-a says "While a pass is in flight, only a player who is eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction" To me, that means no ineligible player may bat a pass in any direction

I'm not finding any ARs that fit these scenarios, but the rule language is clear.  If a player is not eligible to touch the pass, neither may he bat the pass in any direction.  The only thing that changed when the forward pass bounced off of A55's head is that there could no longer be Pass Interference.  But, since the legal forward pass hadn't yet touched a player of Team B, or an official, eligibility rules had not changed, so A79 was still not eligible to touch the pass.  When he batted it, it was both illegal touching, and illegal batting.

Robert

[dvasques]

That was my original thinking, Robert. But I started overthinking the whole thing and it got confusing. And apparently, it is not that clear...

[ElvisLives]

The key on this is understanding that the pass, in this case, is a legal forward pass.  That triggers eligibility rules, and, by association, the rule prohibiting batting of a legal forward pass by a player not eligible to touch the pass.  If it was a backward pass, or illegal forward pass, those rules don’t apply.  Simple? Maybe not.  If it was simple, all those broadcasters would know what they are talking about.🤫

Very little about officiating is simple or straightforward.  We all simply have to do what we are doing, i.e., constantly study, question, and review, independently, or in groups - even online.

Keep the dialogue going.

Robert

[dvasques]

And then to the other part of my question, why is it that 2-2-3-a defines loose ball as "The interval after a legal forward pass is touched and before it becomes complete, incomplete or intercepted"?

Why is it that a pass is not a loose ball once thrown? What is that definition affecting?

[Kalle]

Why is it that a pass is not a loose ball once thrown? What is that definition affecting?

It slightly simplifies the language in rules 9-2-3-d and 9-2-4-b.

[Magician]

And then to the other part of my question, why is it that 2-2-3-a defines loose ball as "The interval after a legal forward pass is touched and before it becomes complete, incomplete or intercepted"?

Why is it that a pass is not a loose ball once thrown? What is that definition affecting?

This likely has to do with when a player can legally bat a forward pass. The next statement in the same rule is "This interval is during a forward pass play, and any player eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction." It has nothing to do with penalty enforcement. It seems like an odd reference because touching would precede batting anyway so I'm not sure how it really impacts any rules.

[dvasques]

It slightly simplifies the language in rules 9-2-3-d and 9-2-4-b.

9?

[dvasques]

This likely has to do with when a player can legally bat a forward pass. The next statement in the same rule is "This interval is during a forward pass play, and any player eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction." It has nothing to do with penalty enforcement. It seems like an odd reference because touching would precede batting anyway so I'm not sure how it really impacts any rules.

I still don't get why we're not calling every pass a loose ball. Or don't we? I mean, when 9-4 talks about batting a loose ball, it states what can be done to a pass, and then goes on to talk about other loose balls. So why do the definition of loose ball doesn't consider a pass to be one? Only after the pass has been touched?

[Kalle]

9?

Sorry, 9-3-3-d and 9-3-4-b, ie. use of hands by offense and defense during a pass play.

[Legacy Zebra]

Welp, looks like the first round is on me for this miss. My brain completely ignored the "only" in 9-4-1-a and it completely changed the resulting interpretation. Never doubt The King.

[ElvisLives]

Quite the contrary.  Always be ready to question what I post.  That’s how we learn.  If you read something that seems wrong, or you’ve never really read/heard before, don’t just take the poster’s word for it.  Check it out for yourself.  You’ll either confirm the poster’s statement, or find cause to dispute the statement and extend the discussion until everyone fully understands the related rule(s).
You’ll never hurt my feelings by questioning anything I post.

Robert

[Kalle]

That’s how we learn.  If you read something that seems wrong, or you’ve never really read/heard before, don’t just take the poster’s word for it.  Check it out for yourself.  You’ll either confirm the poster’s statement, or find cause to dispute the statement and extend the discussion until everyone fully understands the related rule(s).

This is the great thing about this board. Everybody, including the resident gurus such as the King and LZ, are willing to both teach and learn.