Pass to Ineligible Receiver

[Bulldog75]

I had a play in a game last season where the QB threw the ball to an offensive lineman who was 5 yards downfield.  So we had ineligible receiver downfield and illegal touching.  It seemed like an obvious enforcement as the ineligible receiver penalty is 5 yards from the previous spot while the illegal touching penalty is the same but also includes a loss of down. 

But later I wondered if we might also have had a foul for an illegal forward pass.  The QB was being pressured when he made the throw.  I don't recall whether there were any eligible receivers in the area, so I think that would have been the deciding factor for that ruling.  That would have also been a loss of down, but the next play would have been from the spot of the pass.  Do I have that right? 

[ElvisLives]

I had a play in a game last season where the QB threw the ball to an offensive lineman who was 5 yards downfield.  So we had ineligible receiver downfield and illegal touching.  It seemed like an obvious enforcement as the ineligible receiver penalty is 5 yards from the previous spot while the illegal touching penalty is the same but also includes a loss of down. 

But later I wondered if we might also have had a foul for an illegal forward pass.  The QB was being pressured when he made the throw.  I don't recall whether there were any eligible receivers in the area, so I think that would have been the deciding factor for that ruling.  That would have also been a loss of down, but the next play would have been from the spot of the pass.  Do I have that right?

Yes, the legality of the pass makes all the difference. Illegal touching and ineligible downfield fouls can only occur during LEGAL forward passes, by rule. If it is any form of an illegal forward pass, including intentional grounding, then there can be no illegal touching or ineligible downfield fouls. So, the first thing the crew must do is determine if the pass was legal. If it was, then, yes, you could have ITP and/or IDP.  As you say, you'd decline the IDP, and accept the ITP, since it includes LOD.
But, the pass could easily be ING, so you must go through the process of determining if the pass was ING or not. That's a whole other story, that we'll defer to another time. But, if it was legal, then you may have ITP and/or IDP. If the pass was not legal, then you'd only have the ING or IFP.
Almost any time you have an ING, that will probably be the penalty of choice, because, being LOD at the spot of the pass, it will almost always result in a greater yardage loss than even a holding penalty, plus it includes LOD. Even other illegal forward passes will likely trump other penalties. EX: Second forward pass, or a pass thrown beyond the NZ - that's 5 yards from the spot of the pass, plus LOD.

So, yeah. You gotta know the status of the pass. Totally OK to wave off the ITP or IDP, if the pass was illegal. (Heck, you might not even signal them, at all - just go with the ING or IFP).

[Bulldog75]

Thanks for the follow up.  I hadn't picked up on the illegal forward pass negating the other two potential fouls.  I was incorrectly thinking we had three fouls to choose from.  I should have checked the approved rulings because this exact case is covered there (A.R. 7-3-2-XII and A.R. 7-3-11-I). 

This lead me to read the approved rulings on illegal touching, and A.R. 7-3-11-II is an interesting one.  To have an intentional grounding foul we need to have no eligible receiver in the area AND the QB needs to be attempting to conserve time or yardage.  What should we consider to know his intentions?

Team A snaps on its 10-yard line. A10 retreats and then passes forward to ineligible A70 who, while in his end zone,
(a) touches the ball as he attempts to catch the pass, and the pass is incomplete;
(b) catches the pass and is downed in the end zone; or
(c) catches the pass and is downed after having advanced to his three-yard line.

RULING:
(a) Team B may accept the five-yard penalty from the previous spot that includes loss of down, so the down will count.
(b) The ball is dead in the end zone with impetus by Team A, and Team B may elect the safety or the penalty at the previous spot with loss of down.
(c) Five-yard penalty from the previous spot and loss of down. The down counts if the penalty is declined; the dead-ball spot might be deemed more advantageous to Team B than the penalty

[Note: (a), (b) and (c) could be intentional grounding depending on the location of an eligible Team A player or the location of A10 when the ball is thrown] (Rule 10-1-1-b). If intentional grounding is warranted, there is no illegal touching.]

[dammitbobby]

For C, I'd bet at least 50% of HS officials if not more would blow that dead when the ineligible Team A player caught it in the EZ... Frankly muscle memory would probably cause me to do the same. Which sucks because the IW bails out Team A.

[ElvisLives]

Thanks for the follow up.  I hadn't picked up on the illegal forward pass negating the other two potential fouls.  I was incorrectly thinking we had three fouls to choose from.  I should have checked the approved rulings because this exact case is covered there (A.R. 7-3-2-XII and A.R. 7-3-11-I). 

This lead me to read the approved rulings on illegal touching, and A.R. 7-3-11-II is an interesting one.  To have an intentional grounding foul we need to have no eligible receiver in the area AND the QB needs to be attempting to conserve time or yardage.  What should we consider to know his intentions?

Team A snaps on its 10-yard line. A10 retreats and then passes forward to ineligible A70 who, while in his end zone,
(a) touches the ball as he attempts to catch the pass, and the pass is incomplete;
(b) catches the pass and is downed in the end zone; or
(c) catches the pass and is downed after having advanced to his three-yard line.

RULING:
(a) Team B may accept the five-yard penalty from the previous spot that includes loss of down, so the down will count.
(b) The ball is dead in the end zone with impetus by Team A, and Team B may elect the safety or the penalty at the previous spot with loss of down.
(c) Five-yard penalty from the previous spot and loss of down. The down counts if the penalty is declined; the dead-ball spot might be deemed more advantageous to Team B than the penalty

[Note: (a), (b) and (c) could be intentional grounding depending on the location of an eligible Team A player or the location of A10 when the ball is thrown] (Rule 10-1-1-b). If intentional grounding is warranted, there is no illegal touching.]

With regard to a passer's intentions, time and score are first and foremost. Late in the half/game, behind in score, out of times out, he's likely trying to conserve time. If time/score aren't critical, and he has been chased 15 yards behind the NZ, and is just dumping the ball, then he is trying to conserve yardage. Now, if he is the receiver of the snap and gets outside the tackle box, he can dump all he wants, if he can get the ball to/beyond the NZ (extended beyond the sidelines). If he is not in imminent danger of being contacted by an opponent, he can throw it forward wherever he wants, within or outside the tackle box. If he is in imminent danger of being contacted by an opponent before he can get outside the tackle box, then he must throw it to an area occupied by an eligible teammate (behind or beyond the NZ).

If there was an eligible teammate in the area, then you have ITP, with the penalty and options you indicate.
But, if no eligible teammate in the area, then you'll have ING, whether touched/caught, or not. If the pass is caught and the ball becomes dead in the end zone, then the penalty and the result of down, both, yield a safety. If the pass is caught and becomes dead in the field of play, the penalty yields a safety, but Team B could decline the penalty to take the result of the down.

Good discussion.

 

[TxBJ]

For C, I'd bet at least 50% of HS officials if not more would blow that dead when the ineligible Team A player caught it in the EZ... Frankly muscle memory would probably cause me to do the same. Which sucks because the IW bails out Team A.

This response puzzles me. What muscle memory would have officials blowing a completed pass dead when caught?

[dammitbobby]

This response puzzles me. What muscle memory would have officials blowing a completed pass dead when caught?

Re-reading it, I misread it the first time, I read it as as an illegal forward pass with the LOS at the B-10, not A-10.

(and even in that situation, it would still be ruled a TD as soon as the catch was made, since 8-2-b says 'a player' catches a forward pass in the opponent's EZ, not 'an eligible player.'

Reading comprehension is not my jam today.

[JasonTX]

For C, I'd bet at least 50% of HS officials if not more would blow that dead when the ineligible Team A player caught it in the EZ... Frankly muscle memory would probably cause me to do the same. Which sucks because the IW bails out Team A.

Why would they blow it dead?  Even though it might be illegal touching, the ball would still be live.  Let him rumble all the way for an apparent TD.

[dammitbobby]

yeah I know.  brain fart, was thinking we were at other end of the field. Disregard.