Helmet lost situations

[Willis]

Say the tight end gets his helmet knocked off immediately after the snap.  He disengages and walks towards the sideline while the qb is in the pocket.  The qb, in the pocket and under duress, throws to the tight end.  There are no other eligible receivers near the helmetless TE.  Would the offense be penalized for intentional grounding?  If the tight end catches it, is there a penalty for illegal touching or illegal participation? 

[refjeff]

He is an eligible receiver by position and number.

If he catches the pass he is participating, illegally.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I would not throw an IG here but as refjeff noted, if he touches the pass intentionally, it's IP.

[dammitbobby]

That's an interesting question. If he really is walking towards the sideline, and has no intention of being a part of the play, I'd have a hard time penalizing him for catching a ball - we're saying that he should just let the ball hit him in his face? IMO what he does after the play is what matters, if there's a football move, or similar, yes I would agree that is a foul. But I think someone reactively catching a ball thrown to them who has essentially declared they are not participating, then they do nothing, IMO this is not a foul. It's not his fault the ball was thrown to him.

[AlUpstateNY]

Did he "catch" the pass to avoid being hit by it, WITHOUT depriving an opponent of intercepting it?  Seems like simply an "Incomplete pass" would be the most logical ruling, if play had not been unfairly interrupted.  Sometimes "common sense" can be more practical than endless legal argument.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Did he "catch" the pass to avoid being hit by it, WITHOUT depriving an opponent of intercepting it?  Seems like simply an "Incomplete pass" would be the most logical ruling, if play had not been unfairly interrupted.  Sometimes "common sense" can be more practical than endless legal argument.

But that ignores the actual facts.  If he " ... walks towards the sideline ... " then he obviously knows the rules.  So given that, he simply cannot intentionally touch a live ball. End of discussion.   

[AlUpstateNY]

Sometimes "common sense" can offset  imprudent rule interpretation.  Perhaps I could have been more specific suggesting, That if the pass was threatening to actually
hitting the receiver in the face (or elsewhere) & he instinctively either redirected, or caught the ball to protect himself (now helmetless) WITHOUT interfering with, or depriving an opponent from gaining possession, one might consider "punishing" the player somewhat unnecessary and/or excessive, and simply end the play.

[Willis]

I still question if this should be intentional grounding.  Without a helmet, he is no longer a legal participant in the play, can he really be considered an eligible receiver?

[Ralph Damren]

I still question if this should be intentional grounding.  Without a helmet, he is no longer a legal participant in the play, can he really be considered an eligible receiver?

Some of you that are long of tooth (line me) may remember a challanging question of the yearly NFHS exams that went sorta' : "Eligible A1 steps on sideline when running a pass pattern. He is no longer eligible. (T/F)"
Answer :If eligible at the snap, he will always be eligible ;HOWEVER, he is now guilty of IP.

IMHO, the play should be blown dead if he catches the pass w/o a hat. If you  him ,you have book support, but if he was walking off the field (as he should) and quickly dropped the pass...  

[lawdog]

I still question if this should be intentional grounding.  Without a helmet, he is no longer a legal participant in the play, can he really be considered an eligible receiver?

A player who is eligible at the snap remains eligible until the ball is dead.  Even if he also can't legally participate, he's still eligible by rule because that's determined at the time of snap.