Illegal touching / grounding ?

[sirhoagy]

[Posted this in the NFHS forum as it happened in high school, but wanted to see what sort of chatter this generates if this happens in a college game]

1/10 from A 12 yard line.

A1 takes the snap, drops back into his end zone.  Under pressure, he passes the ball forward which is caught by A65 at the A 6-yard line.  A65 is tackled at the A15.

Illegal touching?
Illegal forward pass?
Intentional grounding?

Some other penalty(ies)?

No foul/legal play?

NOTE: In college, this would mean the passer was in the pocket as the passes the ball.  A65 touched/caught/advanced the ball

[TXMike]

Was there an eligible receiver in the area where A65 caught the ball?    That will have a lot to do with all the answers

[sirhoagy]

Negative.

No eligible receivers in the area.

[TXMike]

Ok  Then it was an illegal fwd pass (int grounding).  Impossible to have illegal touching on an illegal fwd pass.  The grounding happened in EZ so that is a safety if penalty accepted.  If not accepted, 2d and 7 at the 15

[sirhoagy]

Counter: By its namesake, grounding requires the ball to be grounded and intentionally.  I can't judge passer's intention, just the outcome.  A65 touched, caught, advanced the pass. 

To me, this muddies the water.   Illegal touching's wording applies 100% to the situation whereas grounding does not.

Can you help me understand why this is grounding and not touching?

[TXMike]

Passing a ball forward  into an area where there is no eligible receiver when you are still in the tackle box and are trying to conserve yardage is intentional grounding.   If you judge he was not under duress and was just mistaken about who he was throwing to, then no intentional grounding. But if he was under duress, Does not matter that other players were there or got the ball.   Int grounding is an illegal forward pass.  The illegal touching rule requires a pass be a legal fwd pass in order to charge with illegal touching. If you are saying it was not intentional grounding, then you can just go with the illegal touching but that is a very different penalty.

[ElvisLives]

Counter: By its namesake, grounding requires the ball to be grounded and intentionally.  I can't judge passer's intention, just the outcome.  A65 touched, caught, advanced the pass. 

To me, this muddies the water.   Illegal touching's wording applies 100% to the situation whereas grounding does not.

Can you help me understand why this is grounding and not touching?

Sir Hoagy,
It is by interpretation, not pure rule language.  I have long wished that Redding or Shaw would change the language to say that intentional grounding is a forward pass "...thrown to the ground inbounds where there is no eligible player of team A, or into an out of bounds portion of the playing enclosure, to avoid loss of yardage...," or something like that.  The part about avoiding a loss of yardage is the part that is interpreted as meaning he is under duress.  That part, too, could be clarified by saying something like, "..when the ball carrier is in imminent threat of loss of yardage by an opponent and he throws a pass forward to the ground..."

I am of the personal opinion - purely personal opinion - that, if the pass is caught by an originally ineligible player, that should not be intentional grounding, but simply illegal touching.  But, let's make all illegal touching (of a pass) penalties loss of down at the previous spot.  Then we get the same results, but with less confusing rule language.

[Kalle]

I am of the personal opinion - purely personal opinion - that, if the pass is caught by an originally ineligible player, that should not be intentional grounding, but simply illegal touching.  But, let's make all illegal touching (of a pass) penalties loss of down at the previous spot.  Then we get the same results, but with less confusing rule language.

You would need more changes - or an exception - to get the result that if a forward pass is thrown from the end zone to an originally ineligible player, the result of the penalty is a safety (which I think is the right thing).

[Morningrise]

You can always announce it as "illegal forward pass to conserve yardage."

"Intentional grounding" is just a nickname, more or less. Outside of the ARs and Rule 12 it only appears once in the rulebook, and not in Rule 2 or Rule 7.

Not every foul has an official name. Some need a complete sentence just to specify which rule was violated in the first place. ("Kicking team number 88 went out of OOB during the kick and returned during the down.") If you don't want the nickname "intentional grounding" to include this counterintuitive case where A65 catches it, then announce the foul in a complete sentence instead.

But do use the same signal as IG.

[sirhoagy]

[Received a ruling from the State rules interpreter for High School rules who said, and I agree with this:   “Intentional grounding:  If there is a receiver near where a fwd pass land, this is not intentional grounding.  Do not read ‘intent’ of the QB.”      I realize that may not apply at NCAA level]

....but I agree with that.  I can't determine intent.  I can only determine outcome. 

In the spirit of understanding, what would make it illegal touching in the scenario I described? 

I've never seen grounding called on a ball that is passed to, touched by, and intentionally caught behind the line by an ineligible receiver.  I *have* seen illegal touching called.

This is a confusing rule application, and the wording isn't helping, either.

I do appreciate the discussion as this is a less-than-straightforward situation.

[Kalle]

In the spirit of understanding, what would make it illegal touching in the scenario I described? 

I've never seen grounding called on a ball that is passed to, touched by, and intentionally caught behind the line by an ineligible receiver.  I *have* seen illegal touching called.

This is a confusing rule application, and the wording isn't helping, either.

I do appreciate the discussion as this is a less-than-straightforward situation.

When in doubt about a rule first check the A.R.'s

A.R. 7-3-2-XII: "Third and 10 at the A-30. Quarterback A11 drops back to pass. About to be tackled at the A-20, he throws the ball forward to an area where there are no eligible receivers. Tackle A77 catches the pass at the A-28 and is tackled at the A-32. RULING: Illegal forward pass; loss of down at the spot of the pass. Fourth and 20 at the A-20. This is “intentional grounding” since A11 throws the ball into an area where there are no eligible Team A receivers. Note that this is not illegal touching by A77, because the rule for illegal touching applies only to a legal forward pass."

To be illegal touching the QB would have to be outside the pocket and the touching would have to happen beyond the LOS, or there would have to be an eligible receiver within the area code.

[TXMike]

If you are gonna use Rom’s descriptions at least get it right 😁😁😁 within the “zip code” 😁😁😁

[bossman72]

I am of the personal opinion - purely personal opinion - that, if the pass is caught by an originally ineligible player, that should not be intentional grounding, but simply illegal touching.  But, let's make all illegal touching (of a pass) penalties loss of down at the previous spot.  Then we get the same results, but with less confusing rule language.

I think they should at the very least make illegal touching a 3 and 1 foul.  So if you dump it to a lineman who catches it in the end zone, you can have a safety at least.  A rare occasion where the high school rule is better.  3 and 1 (all but one) enforcement with loss of down.

[sirhoagy]

To be illegal touching the QB would have to be outside the pocket and the touching would have to happen beyond the LOS, or there would have to be an eligible receiver within the area code.

I think that'll satisfy this argument for college rules for me; it's the NFHS rule-set where we have liberal interpretation of this.

If this happens in NCAA, I'll call it grounding, no problem.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I think that'll satisfy this argument for college rules for me; it's the NFHS rule-set where we have liberal interpretation of this.

If this happens in NCAA, I'll call it grounding, no problem.

Interesting since the accepted differences document that's posted every year doesn't list any differences between codes for this?