Week 5 Memo

[hefnerjm]

Question 1:

Do You believe this play is an example of the QB’s throwing motion being effected by the contact?
ING - Incomplete or Down - https://youtu.be/BrzklewdvIk

After watching the replay, I think the QB was down...but we dont have the benefit of Youtube/Hudl during the game.  I could see this easily being ruled as a pass.  I think the intent of having this question in the memo is to clarify that if you rule this a pass, that it should always be forward (and not backward) if the QBs arm was moving forward before the contact.

Part 2:
If you rule forward pass on this play, would you also have intentional grounding?  Ball snapped on right hash, QB is close to edge of tackle box (around center of field) when ball is released.   No receiver in the area, and ball does not make it back to LOS.  (effectively same result as ruling the QB down - Loss of down at spot of foul = spot of the sack).

[mobetta285]

Easier sell that QB was down than ING. My first thought was backward pass as I didn't feel the blitzer had spun QB enough for it to be considered a forward pass. From the EZ camera appears knee is down before ball leaves his hands.

[NoVaBJ]

If not down, no ING because the pass is backward.

[hefnerjm]

If not down, no ING because the pass is backward.

I think the point is that the philosophy is to always rule the pass forward when there is contact after the QBs arm is moving forward (forward motion), regardless of where the ball lands.

[JasonTX]

I think the point is that the philosophy is to always rule the pass forward when there is contact after the QBs arm is moving forward (forward motion), regardless of where the ball lands.

 

That is by the rule book as well.

[hefnerjm]

 

That is by the rule book as well.

So, my question is:  If there is contact that impacts where the ball goes, we rule forward.  However, that contact should not relieve the QB of the obligation to get the ball back to the LOS for purposes of ING.

[Osric Pureheart]

Why should the defense be allowed to create a grounding foul by hitting the QB and causing him to throw the ball somewhere other than where he might have been aiming?  That doesn't seem to be what the rule is there for; it's called intentional grounding.

[hefnerjm]

Why should the defense be allowed to create a grounding foul by hitting the QB and causing him to throw the ball somewhere other than where he might have been aiming?  That doesn't seem to be what the rule is there for; it's called intentional grounding.

I have always read intentional grounding as the QB trying to get rid of the ball to avoid a sack.  If the criteria for ING are there (ball doesnt get back to LOS, no receiver in area, QB still in tackle box, etc), then why should we punish the defense by letting the QB off with an incomplete pass?

The defense should be awarded with either a sack (if we rule QB is down), or with ING if the QB gets the ball away and the criteria above are in place.  The onus should be on the QB to get outside the tackle box before the defense gets to him...that would earn him the 

[hefnerjm]

 

That is by the rule book as well.

Rule reference anyone?

[BankerRef]

The reference for no ING is in the CCA mechanics manual under philosophies for passing situations.

"If a passer is contacted after he starts his passing motion, it may be ruled no intentional grounding due to this contact"

The reference for making it a forward pass is rule 2-19-2-b.

[BankerRef]

The reference for no ING is in the CCA mechanics manual under philosophies for passing situations.

"If a passer is contacted after he starts his passing motion, it may be ruled no intentional grounding due to this contact"

The reference for making it a forward pass is rule 2-19-2-b.

I can understand the confusion though because for some reason TASO does not include this in the philosophy section for ING.  They do however include a philosophy for making the pass a forward pass even though that is addressed in the rule book and needs no philosophy.