RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Fatso on May 08, 2024, 10:50:17 AM

Title: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: Fatso on May 08, 2024, 10:50:17 AM
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?


Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: sczeebra 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.
Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: Fatso 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.
Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: dammitbobby 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.
Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: ElvisLives 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.
Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: CalhounLJ 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.
Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: dammitbobby 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.
Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: Ralph Damren 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.

Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: SCline on May 12, 2024, 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
Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: Ralph Damren on May 13, 2024, 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 
Title: Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on May 13, 2024, 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.