RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: BetweenTheLines on July 22, 2020, 07:27:42 AM
-
Is this a true statement?
It is impossible to have roughing the passer on a player positioned directly behind the snapper who intentionally threw the ball forward to the ground immediately after receiving the snap that has neither been muffed nor touched the ground,aka;(7-5-2e. EXCEPTION).
-
False
-
2-32-ART. 11 . . .A passer is a player who throws a legal forward pass. He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play.
9-4-ART. 4 . . .Roughing the passer. Defensive players must make a definite effort to avoid charging into a passer, who has thrown the ball from in or behind the neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown. No defensive player shall commit any illegal personal contact foul listed in 9-4-3 against the passer.
-
So what you two are saying is that this type of pass is a legal forward pass. Is that correct?
-
I would be more inclined to call it a personal foul rather than RTP. Intentional grounding, even spiking the ball legally, is not a legal forward pass.
-
So given js in sc's rationale, if A snaps the ball on B's 30 and receives it on B's 37 and spikes it, then they will next snap it from that spot(B's 37). I don't think there is rule support for this. And I don't believe there is rule support for Roughing either.
-
So given js in sc's rationale, if A snaps the ball on B's 30 and receives it on B's 37 and spikes it, then they will next snap it from that spot(B's 37). I don't think there is rule support for this. And I don't believe there is rule support for Roughing either.
I believe your spot is correct. Each spike moves the ball to the point where it was spiked.
-
I respectfully disagree.
The previous spot would be the succeeding spot, just as it was for the past years when hand to hand was required to 'spike' the legal forward pass to conserve time. Also, since it is ruled a forward pass incomplete, to stop the clock, it would also make a PF against the passer RTP. The fact that the passer is now not required to have a hand to hand, but can spike the ball with a legal forward pass farther back in the offensive backfield, a PF against the Passer would also be RTP.
-
Some of you guys need to get in the rule book.
-
NFHS 9-4-4 (Penalty) advises; "(Signal 34, 8) 15 yards and a 1st down from the dead ball spot when the dead ball spot id beyond the Neutral Zone and A has possession of the ball and there has been no change of possession and the foul is NOT for an incidental face mask, as in 9-4-3h, otherwise 15 yards and a 1st down from the previous spot.".
Not sure why it might be, but any penalty can be declined.
-
So what you two are saying is that this type of pass is a legal forward pass. Is that correct?
I believe this is correct. The exception in 7-5-2 makes this a legal forward pass. While the corresponding case play doesn't say that exactly, it seems to imply it by the official ruling. 7.5.2 Situation B.
-
I would be more inclined to call it a personal foul rather than RTP. Intentional grounding, even spiking the ball legally, is not a legal forward pass.
On the contrary, I would argue that the exception explicitly MAKES this a legal forward pass. If it weren't legal, we would be penalizing it as an IFP.
-
And with the 2020 rule change, the hand to hand snap provision for the "legal spike" has been removed also.
-
You have a forward pass and you're not throwing a flag, which means you have declared it "legal". That makes it a legal forward pass. If it was illegal, you'd have a flag. You can't have a forward pass that's in the no-man's-land between legal and illegal.
2-32-ART. 11 . . .A passer is a player who throws a legal forward pass. He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play.
9-4-ART. 4 . . .Roughing the passer. Defensive players must make a definite effort to avoid charging into a passer, who has thrown the ball from in or behind the neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown. No defensive player shall commit any illegal personal contact foul listed in 9-4-3 against the passer.
However, let's pick a different nit. The passer ceases being a passer when then pass ends, which means *by rule* you can't have RTP after the spike hits the ground which should be "immediate". Therefore, the defensive player would have to be Superman-ing over the offensive line at the snap (https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ElectricKindheartedArgentinehornedfrog-size_restricted.gif) trying to hit the QB before the spike was complete, and chances are that will be a personal foul anyway (if not just encroaching).
To that end, I'd say it'd be rather impractical to have an RTP on a spike play because of the necessary timing involved. However, if you call it a DBPF, the spike play counts, but calling it RTP lets the offense replay the down.
You could also one-up the penalties if the DB goes Superman -- the encroachment means the down ended before it began, and you can hit him with the DBPF on top of that. However, the clock status would remain and the clock starts on the ready (assuming the clock was running, because why else would you be spiking it?) -- but chances are you're also under 2 minutes in the half and A would have the option to start the clock on the snap instead.
-
However, let's pick a different nit.
I think, if we go back to the basic question asked in the OP "Is this a true statement? It is impossible to have roughing the passer on a player positioned directly behind the snapper...."; we would have to say FALSE. Approaching this as a test question, "impossible"
is an absolute term and I don't think the Fed would climb that far out on a limb as to say it would be impossible to have a foul in the scenario presented.
-
I think, if we go back to the basic question asked in the OP "Is this a true statement? It is impossible to have roughing the passer on a player positioned directly behind the snapper...."; we would have to say FALSE. Approaching this as a test question, "impossible"
is an absolute term and I don't think the Fed would climb that far out on a limb as to say it would be impossible to have a foul in the scenario presented.
Right. As far as that question goes, we have a legal pass, therefore we have a passer, and therefore he could be roughed.
-
I believe that this is a lot simpler so lets not complicate it. QB is in shotgun and immediately grounds the ball forward after receiving the snap. Legal forward pass, DB when it contacts the ground (1 or 2 seconds after receiving the snap), and a B defender then crushes the QB. That's a plain vanilla DBPF in my opinion, clear simple, and by the book.
-
Simple and the Fed can be mutually exclusive on occasion.
-
I believe that this is a lot simpler so lets not complicate it. QB is in shotgun and immediately grounds the ball forward after receiving the snap. Legal forward pass, DB when it contacts the ground (1 or 2 seconds after receiving the snap), and a B defender then crushes the QB. That's a plain vanilla DBPF in my opinion, clear simple, and by the book.
TomAAto, TomAHto, it's YOUR flag, and YOUR call and YOU have several options to choose from, based on what YOU saw happen. NFHS 9-4-4 "Roughing the Passer" (Nothing prevents that from applying to a completed, or incomplete pass), 9-4-3g "Defenseless Player",(consider 2-32-16), Dead Ball Personal Foul 9-4-3a-o "Any/All violations when the ball is Dead.
The call being correct depends on what YOU observed, applied to the rule YOU deem appropriate, are comfortable with and are prepared to EXPLAIN and DEFEND.
-
I think, if we go back to the basic question asked in the OP "Is this a true statement? It is impossible to have roughing the passer on a player positioned directly behind the snapper...."; we would have to say FALSE. Approaching this as a test question, "impossible"
is an absolute term and I don't think the Fed would climb that far out on a limb as to say it would be impossible to have a foul in the scenario presented.
in my experience, this is the logic behind most test questions.
-
TomAAto, TomAHto, it's YOUR flag, and YOUR call and YOU have several options to choose from, based on what YOU saw happen. NFHS 9-4-4 "Roughing the Passer" (Nothing prevents that from applying to a completed, or incomplete pass), 9-4-3g "Defenseless Player",(consider 2-32-16), Dead Ball Personal Foul 9-4-3a-o "Any/All violations when the ball is Dead.
The call being correct depends on what YOU observed, applied to the rule YOU deem appropriate, are comfortable with and are prepared to EXPLAIN and DEFEND.
*words of wisdom*
-
My only add to this would be that this is not a "timing" question of complete or incomplete pass but by rule this has to be an immediate act by the passer upon receiving the snap so IMHO we would be stretching the concept of RTP if we were to take what would have to be a clearly very late hit and call it anything other than a DBPF. I would welcome any additional guidance from the NFHS or our MA state rules gurus.
-
Every time I've been "too literal" where judgment collided with rules, the play went sideways. Time and distance on the described play make RTP impossible. Don't show em how smart we are. Call it a DBPF and, although some may not like the decision, all will understand the decision
-
For me, the automatic 1st down penalty shows an intent to give the passer a level of protection that other types of defenseless players do not get.
I understand that technically the play ended less than 2 seconds previously, but I'm not splitting that hair.
I am ^flag for roughing the passer.
-
So are we intentionally going to ignore the player designation of passer and the 2018 clarification on when the "passer" gets extra defenseless player protection? The book clearly states that a passer is no longer a passer after the pass ends or until he takes further part in the play after he throws a pass. Pretty clear IMHO when he immediately spikes from a shotgun that the pass has ended??? If NFHS wants to call a late DB hit on the player who caught the snap and then spiked the ball RTP then I would suggest we could use some written guidance clarifying the existing language.
-
So are we intentionally going to ignore the player designation of passer and the 2018 clarification on when the "passer" gets extra defenseless player protection? The book clearly states that a passer is no longer a passer after the pass ends or until he takes further part in the play after he throws a pass. Pretty clear IMHO when he immediately spikes from a shotgun that the pass has ended??? If NFHS wants to call a late DB hit on the player who caught the snap and then spiked the ball then I would suggest we could use some written guidance clarifying the existing language.
Written "guidance" is (thankfully) not necessary. It really, simply, depends on what the covering official actually observed. When he observes the pass has ended (normally happens pretty quick). As Rule 2 has long clearly advised, the player who threw the pass, is no longer a passer, and any subsequent unsportsmanlike contact against that player, should be considered an USC foul.
-
Written "guidance" is (thankfully) not necessary. It really, simply, depends on what the covering official actually observed. When he observes the pass has ended (normally happens pretty quick). As Rule 2 has long clearly advised, the player who threw the pass, is no longer a passer, and any subsequent unsportsmanlike contact against that player, should be considered an USC foul.
I think you need to change USC foul to Dead Ball Personal Foul because NFHS rules define USC fouls as noncontact.