Author Topic: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).  (Read 232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fatso

  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-1
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
2nd and 7 for Team A at Team B’s 35-yard line.
Guard A66 blocks his man at the line then moves
to the 30-yard line before A10 throws a pass
which hits A66 in the back and falls incomplete.
The Umpire flags the alleged infraction.

RULING: Team A will play 3rd down and 12 at
Team B’s 40-yard line.

True of False?



Offline sczeebra

  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2024, 10:55:23 AM »
False. It will either be decline 3rd and 7 or accept ineligible downfield 2nd and 12. This is not illegal touching.

Offline Fatso

  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-1
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2024, 11:11:50 AM »
False. This is not illegal touching.
Why isn't it illegal touching?  thanks!   (rules states if he bats, muffs, or catches a pass).  I guess hitting him in the back isn't considered a muff.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 11:14:24 AM by Fatso »

Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 1194
  • FAN REACTION: +27/-8
  • I know just enough to be dangerous...
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2024, 11:27:03 AM »
I'm guessing NFHS rule is similar to NCAA in the definition of a muff:

To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3461
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2024, 11:34:26 AM »
I'm guessing NFHS rule is similar to NCAA in the definition of a muff:

To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it.

Sorry to involve NCAA in this, but the reason it is not a foul in NCAA has nothing to do with muff versus fumble, or anything like it. The Illegal Touching rule (touching by an originally ineligible player) directly states that the ball must be intentionally touched to be a foul.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2941
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2024, 12:06:15 PM »
Why isn't it illegal touching?  thanks!   (rules states if he bats, muffs, or catches a pass).  I guess hitting him in the back isn't considered a muff.
you guess right.

Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 1194
  • FAN REACTION: +27/-8
  • I know just enough to be dangerous...
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2024, 12:42:08 PM »
Sorry to involve NCAA in this, but the reason it is not a foul in NCAA has nothing to do with muff versus fumble, or anything like it. The Illegal Touching rule (touching by an originally ineligible player) directly states that the ball must be intentionally touched to be a foul.

right -I was answering from the perspective of why drilling him in the back isn't considered a muff.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4686
  • FAN REACTION: +865/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2024, 06:17:37 AM »
Consider this...Lefty, the QB, fades back to pass. Pass hits big ole' Bubba ,an OT, legally in the backfield on his backside. This is just a bad pass and no IT. Same is true if Bhbba was beyond LOS. Bubba wandering downfield is still IR.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2024, 11:47:02 AM by Ralph Damren »

Offline SCline

  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-1
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 09:18:15 PM »
Why isn't it illegal touching?  thanks!   (rules states if he bats, muffs, or catches a pass).  I guess hitting him in the back isn't considered a muff.

Rule 2, rule 2, rule 2. All three of those words are defined in rule 2

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4686
  • FAN REACTION: +865/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #9 on: Today at 06:23:00 AM »
Rule 2, rule 2, rule 2. All three of those words are defined in rule 2

NFHS Football Rules : Rule 2 is most informative
                                Rule 10 is most challanging
                                Rule 1-7 state's rights

U.S. Bill of Rights :    10 Amend. State's Rights 

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3850
  • FAN REACTION: +99/-283
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
« Reply #10 on: Today at 02:10:53 PM »
Would be REALLY SIMPLE to clarify this rule by just using the words INTENTIONAL TOUCHING.  While I agree that understanding and knowing Rule 2 is critical not being clear in the specific rule wording IMHO is a serious omission.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel