Philosophy

[Cowtown Ref]

Ok, was having a discussion/debate with a couple crew members this past weekend.

Whether or not the philosophy behind IDP, is that they want it to be a hard 3 or not.

I understand if you think its 3, it probably wasnt when the ball left the qb's hand.  But in general they want it to be a hard 3.

I swore that was a point of emphasis with Shaws videos last year or the year before.

Am I wrong?  Or am I making that up?

[jra104]

As a coach with a team that has been burned but having guys way downfield on big plays, I want a hard 3.  The defense is already at a disadvantage on all the RPO stuff.  Add to that when linebackers are seeing lineman downfield it takes them out of coverage responsibility thinking a run is coming. 

[JDM]

I can't remember if Steve opined but Rogers did in 2016 via his 2016 Game Video Review 1 (play 14).

Either way, I personally don't believe we're consistent with regards to how it's called in Texas H.S. games.

[Cowtown Ref]

Thanks for that perspective.  As a U, I read it that way when I see them come off the line.  Ive actually never thought about the linebackers reading the same thing and how that would affect them.

So good to hear the Coaches view

[dammitbobby]

My understanding - and I don't remember if this came from a SWCFO clinic(s) or TASO clinic(s) - is that it's treated the same as a passer being past the line of scrimmage when they throw the ball, in that every bit of his body must be beyond, for it to be a foul.

[JasonTX]

For what it's worth in a college game my U and L both had an IDP and they were 3 1/2 yards downfield and the evaluator said it was a "great call".

[Cowtown Ref]

Guess the question is, would it be a good call right at 3?

[dammitbobby]

I would think we would not want to be too technical on this, but at the same time, call it tight.  exactly 3 yards no, 3.5 yards would be a maybe, 4 and above, yes.  Just my opinion.

[Clear Lake ref]

Right at 3 would be wrong. Rule says MORE than 3. I think realistically 3.5 is the call. 4 for absolute.

On a normal try, if they are completely across the goal line.

[Cowtown Ref]

Ineligible Receiver Downfield
ARTICLE 10. No originally ineligible receiver shall be or have been more than
three yards beyond the neutral zone until a passer throws a legal forward pass
that crosses the neutral zone.

Key word is "shall be or"

So the rule is 3 or more.  Not just more than 3.

Dont get me wrong, im in agreement that 3 alone is getting a little picky and tough to even be 100% right on in real time.

[JasonTX]

Ineligible Receiver Downfield
ARTICLE 10. No originally ineligible receiver shall be or have been more than
three yards beyond the neutral zone until a passer throws a legal forward pass
that crosses the neutral zone.

Key word is "shall be or"

So the rule is 3 or more.  Not just more than 3.

Dont get me wrong, im in agreement that 3 alone is getting a little picky and tough to even be 100% right on in real time.

Shall be more than three yards.....or have been more than three yards.  The key is more than.

[ElvisLives]

Ineligible Receiver Downfield
ARTICLE 10. No originally ineligible receiver shall be or have been more than
three yards beyond the neutral zone until a passer throws a legal forward pass
that crosses the neutral zone.

Key word is "shall be or"

So the rule is 3 or more.  Not just more than 3.

Dont get me wrong, im in agreement that 3 alone is getting a little picky and tough to even be 100% right on in real time.

Piling on to Jason's comment. The rule is MORE than 3 yards. What you are reading is the fact that an ineligible player of A may not be MORE than three beyond the NZ at any time during the passing play portion of the down, which begins at the snap. Thus, he may not be, and may not have ever been, more than three yards beyond the NZ before a legal forward pass that crosses the NZ is released. Example:
A68 charges forward at the snap to a point a full 4 yards beyond the NZ, and then retreats to a point within 3 yards beyond the NZ, and then A12 throws a legal forward pass to an eligible receiver that first touches the passed ball beyond the NZ. Even though A68 was not more than 3 yards beyond the NZ at the moment the ball was thrown, he HAD BEEN more than 3 yards beyond the NZ between the snap and the time the pass was released. That is still IDP.
And that is still how they want us to officiate it. (They = NCAA leadership, and, thus, TASO leadership.)

Now, people smarter than me would like to see some form of moderation to this rule. Specifically, in cases where an ineligible player wanders more than three yards beyond the NZ, outside the hash on the right side of the field, no opponent within 5 yards of him, and nobody on Team B is paying any attention to him, and the pass is thrown outside the hash marks to the left - why should this be a foul? It had ZERO effect on the play.
While I would love to see a rule that fixed this problem, I don't know how that can be done, with any acceptable degree of consistency in its application. How can anybody be certain that a defensive back didn't confuse this ineligible player for an eligible player - even if only momentarily (especially if he might be wearing an eligible number, which could happen, even on a normal scrimmage down). Even a momentary lapse in pass coverage can result in a big play for Team A.
I think I could support a rule change that supported a foul only if the pass is thrown into a side zone opposite of the side zone in which the ineligible player was too far downfield. That would reduce these fouls by maybe 10%, but that's better than nothing, and would likely be more fair.
But, I ain't in charge, and that ain't the rule we have. Clearly more than 3 yards downfield = foul (if LFPTCNZ is thrown). 

[Cowtown Ref]

Jason/Elvis,  yeah I see i was taking the word "or" out of context.

I see now that it is more than 3.