Illegal Forward Pass?

[NCVAReferee]

What is your take on this scenario?  Pay special attention to the definition of "pass" and "catch". 


A 1&10 A20. Wide receiver A82 leaps to catch a pass near the sideline at the A38. He realizes he cannot get a foot down inbounds, so he throws the ball (while still airborne) toward end A88 at the A42. B22 deflects the ball at the A42, after which A88 catches the ball and is tackled at the A48.

[maven]

The catch is not complete until he comes down inbounds, and it's not a bat. If not illegal, then legal.

Some of these plays are up on YouTube.

[SD_Casey]

I'll try this one on.

A82 is eligible because he is legally numbered and has not touched anything out of bounds.  The end zone is not involved tin this play.  He changed direction of the ball with his hands or arms which would be a legal batting of the ball

A1&10 at A48

[sir55]

Since he is beyond the NZ when he throws the ball forward, it is an illegal forward pass.  The penalty would be administered from where he threw the illegal forward pass.  It would be 1st and 10 for A at A's 37.  The loss of down would not matter since the line to gain was made.  The catch by 88 is legal for the "catch" to be completed, but since the foul (IFP) is behind the spot of the catch, the foul is a spot foul.

[Curious]

"NCVA" is playing with us guys....

A pass is: throwing a ball that is in player possession (2-31-1).  Possession is not established until the receiver catches a pass 2-34-1 - requiring him to return to the ground in bounds (2-4-1).

So what has our boy, A82, done?  He has merely redirected (NOT BATTED; Rule 2-2) a legal forward pass - which, then, is touched by B22 making everybody eligible.  Eligible (by number) A88 made a catch of a legal forward pass - regardless whether B22 touched it or not.

[FBUmp]

Since he is beyond the NZ when he throws the ball forward, it is an illegal forward pass.  The penalty would be administered from where he threw the illegal forward pass.  It would be 1st and 10 for A at A's 37.  The loss of down would not matter since the line to gain was made.  The catch by 88 is legal for the "catch" to be completed, but since the foul (IFP) is behind the spot of the catch, the foul is a spot foul.

Not true.

There is no IFP.  There is no catch by A82.  Therefore, there is no possession by A82.  Therefore, there is no pass by A82.

This is a legal play.

I'll try this one on.

A82 is eligible because he is legally numbered and has not touched anything out of bounds.  The end zone is not involved tin this play.  He changed direction of the ball with his hands or arms which would be a legal batting of the ball

A1&10 at A48

Casey, whether A82 has been OOB or not, he's still an eligible receiver.  Going OOB, whether forced out or by his own volition, does NOT change his eligiblity status. 

Remember, a player who is eligbile at the beginning of the down remain eligible throughout the down.

[Kalle]

In NCAA this is a legal bat. A similar play actually occurred in a bowl game and unfortunately the crew got it incorrect (fortunately the mistake was relatively minor). There's been an official ruling on this since then. So, if the NF rules on passes, bats and possession are similar enough to NCAA, then you could go with that.

Curious, does the NF rule set really differentiate between a bat and a redirection? What's the difference? In NCAA all intentional touchings that don't end up in possession are either muffs or bats.

[Atlanta Blue]

In NCAA this is a legal bat. A similar play actually occurred in a bowl game and unfortunately the crew got it incorrect (fortunately the mistake was relatively minor). There's been an official ruling on this since then. So, if the NF rules on passes, bats and possession are similar enough to NCAA, then you could go with that.

I was the official scorer of that game, and just last week I had lunch with the R that made the call (it was over 10 years ago!).  Here is a video of the play, althought the quality isn't great:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhYB8OFMaN8

Jon Bible (the R) said they made a "minor error", and basically split the baby by giving Auburn the ball, but assessing a 5 yard penalty.  He also said the conversation with the crew went on WAY too long, and too many officials wanted to argue about the call.

Curious, does the NF rule set really differentiate between a bat and a redirection?

On a pass, there is no difference.

[Curious]

Curious, does the NF rule set really differentiate between a bat and a redirection? What's the difference? In NCAA all intentional touchings that don't end up in possession are either muffs or bats.

The FED defines a bat as "intentionally slapping or striking the ball with the arm or hand"; so, as this did not occur in the OP, there is (at least unintentionally) a differentiation.  "Redirected" was my word to, hopefully, clarify the situation. 

Additionally, as AB points out, with a pass, there is no difference anyway.  Rule 9-7-3 states that "any pass in flight may be batted in any direction by an eligible receiver".  But, there's the word (batting) again; which some may argue is contradictory to the OP.  Our interpretation/practice/direction is, and has been forever, that eligible A may bat/throw/muff, etc the pass in any direction.

[Kalle]

There seems to be a difference here. NCAA defines batting the ball as "intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hand(s) or arm(s)."

[Curious]

There seems to be a difference here. NCAA defines batting the ball as "intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hand(s) or arm(s)."

As I said, I believe the "difference" (or, more accurately, the inconsistency) within the FED rules is unintentional.  Should they clarify?  Probably; but, as I also said, this interpretation - "all bets are off" when an eligible touches, muffs, etc a pass - has been around forever.  We won't hold our breath.

Hey "NCVARef"...where are you?  Time to weigh in...

[SD_Casey]

I'll try this one on.

A82 is eligible because he is legally numbered and has not touched anything out of bounds.

He changed direction of the ball with his hands or arms which would be a legal batting of the ball

Whoops.  I am just starting out in my NCAA rules study and I accidentally went for the wrong rule book.