ING vs ITP

[ElvisLives]

OK, here is a subject I never got around to talking with Adams or Redding about.

Back A44 gets knocked down, trips, or just hung up in traffic and can't get to where he is supposed to be catch a screen pass. Passer A12, in the tackle box, with B99 starting to apply pressure on him, doesn't see that A44 isn't gonna be where he needs to be and throws the pass to that area, anyway. The only Team A player within 10 yards of where the ball will come down is A77, who sees that A44 isn't there, so he runs under the ball himself and makes the catch, and advances 5 yards and gets tackled.
ING or ITP?
With the 2022 rule change for ITP, the difference isn't as much as it was, but it could still be significant. If A12 threw the ball from10 yards behind the NZ, a ruling of ING would be much greater than ITP, even with losing a down either way. But, A12 wasn't consciously just getting rid of the ball. Our experience tells that he thought he was throwing to where his receiver was supposed to be. Should we use our experience in these cases, and rule ITP?

OK, so A12 is under pressure, knows A44 has been knocked down, but has no other option, so he just flings the ball, and A77 makes the catch and the short advance. ING or ITP? Now, our experience tells us that this was a deliberate attempt to just get rid of the ball. That would make this ING, since ITP requires a legal forward pass. ING is a type of illegal forward pass, so ITP isn't possible.

Anybody heard/seen any bona fide philosophy accredited to somebody in authority that gives us guidance on ruling ING or ITP in questionable circumstances?

[bossman72]

I think you're on the right track.  ITP rule was there for instances like when they don't run the "tackle screen" play right and throw it forward instead of backward.  Feels odd calling that play ING, so adding the loss of down for ITP makes sense there.

I can see going ING when the QB is under duress and just dumps it and a lineman happens to catch and/or touch it.

[ElvisLives]

As always, I should have checked ARs. AR 7-3-XII clearly covers the originally ineligible player that catches the ball, when the ball is thrown to an area not occupied by an eligible receiver, and the passer was under duress = ING.
I recall Shaw issued a pre-season video last year that showed a down in which a 'covered' player wearing an 'eligible number,' who was supposed to receive a backward pass, but the pass was thrown forward by a passer "under duress," and the apparent receiver (ineligible) deliberately avoided touching the ball (which flew out of bounds and incomplete) hoping to avoid a foul. Shaw directed that this is to be called ING, on the basis that Team A should know who are originally ineligible players, so 'shame on them' if they throw a forward pass to someone that was ineligible from the snap, and there are no other eligible Team A players in the area, regardless if the pass is touched by the ineligible player, or not. ING.

So, working backwards - so to speak, if the passer is not under duress, and the pass is thrown to an area not occupied by an eligible receiver, but it is touched/caught by an ineligible player, the foul won't be ING, but it will be ITP. In this case (not under  duress), then the ball could also fall incomplete and not be a foul, at all.

The key is whether or not the pass is being thrown to conserve yardage (or time), i.e., he is under duress. If so, ING. If not, ITP (or nothing).

 

[bossman72]

The key is whether or not the pass is being thrown to conserve yardage (or time), i.e., he is under duress. If so, ING. If not, ITP (or nothing).

I agree.  A tackle screen that goes awry shouldn't be ING.  This is why they put the loss of down onto the ITP penalty this year.

Now if the QB is getting sacked and he just chucks it into an area and A77 happens to catch it, then we can certainly think about ING.