Norwell v Concordia Illegal touch

[Purdue Pete]

2nd and 10 from the 6 yard line.  QB drops back into the end zone and in order to avoid the sack completed a forward pass to the offense guard (ineligible) on the 5 yard line who runs to the 10 before tackled.  No eligible receiver within 15 yards.  I believe this should’ve been called a safety.  Was called Illegal touch.  1/2 the distance, replay 2nd down.  Correct call?

[Bobref]

25 minutes ago, Purdue Pete said:

2nd and 10 from the 6 yard line.  QB drops back into the end zone and in order to avoid the sack completed a forward pass to the offense guard (ineligible) on the 5 yard line who runs to the 10 before tackled.  No eligible receiver within 15 yards.  I believe this should’ve been called a safety.  Was called Illegal touch.  1/2 the distance, replay 2nd down.  Correct call?

Close, but not quite.

There is a foul for illegal touching by the ineligible. The penalty, if accepted, is enforced from the spot of the illegal touching. But there’s no replay of the down. The penalty includes loss of down.

Now, as to whether this was intentional grounding or not, there’s an awful lot of judgment that goes into that call. So, all I can say about that without actually seeing the play is that if it was intentional grounding, it would be a safety.

[Purdue Pete]

48 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Close, but not quite.

There is a foul for illegal touching by the ineligible. The penalty, if accepted, is enforced from the spot of the illegal touching. But there’s no replay of the down. The penalty includes loss of down.

Now, as to whether this was intentional grounding or not, there’s an awful lot of judgment that goes into that call. So, all I can say about that without actually seeing the play is that if it was intentional grounding, it would be a safety.

Ur right.  Was loss of down.  So if he wasn’t trying to avoid a sack then it was the right call.

[Huge Football Fan]

1 hour ago, Purdue Pete said:

Ur right.  Was loss of down.  So if he wasn’t trying to avoid a sack then it was the right call.

Was his arm hit? Was he trying to throw it further to someone else but had people hanging on him or was he under pressure and just threw it to an area with no eligibles? 

[Bobref]

2 minutes ago, Huge Football Fan said:

Was his arm hit? Was he trying to throw it further to someone else but had people hanging on him or was he under pressure and just threw it to an area with no eligibles? 

All good questions. That’s why I think you really have to see a play to call intentional grounding.

[Purdue Pete]

17 hours ago, Bobref said:

All good questions. That’s why I think you really have to see a play to call intentional grounding.

Just watched film again.  The QB was 2 yds deep in the end zone and fell / falling down backwards to avoid a tackler when he threw. he was not hit and fell to his back.  Threw  a nice ball sidearm to his offensive guard in the flat, 5 yd line, between the hash and the sideline.  Closest receiver down field was at the 24.  Next Closest receiver was on the 6 ya line center of the field.  I guess thought the guard was eligible and unloaded it....Should’ve been a safety.

[Bobref]

On 11/12/2020 at 8:26 AM, Purdue Pete said:

Just watched film again.  The QB was 2 yds deep in the end zone and fell / falling down backwards to avoid a tackler when he threw. he was not hit and fell to his back.  Threw  a nice ball sidearm to his offensive guard in the flat, 5 yd line, between the hash and the sideline.  Closest receiver down field was at the 24.  Next Closest receiver was on the 6 ya line center of the field.  I guess thought the guard was eligible and unloaded it....Should’ve been a safety.

Most of my career on the field was spent at the Referee position, so I spent an awful lot of time on intentional grounding. “Intentional” means exactly that. You have to give high school QBs a lot of leeway when you’re making a judgment based on the absence of a receiver in the area. They really make some awful throws, especially when contacted, off balance, or as in your instance, falling. In most cases their mechanics aren’t nearly good enough to have any sort of accuracy if they get out of their normal arm angle. So, if there’s any doubt, it’s not intentional grounding.

[Purdue Pete]

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

Most of my career on the field was spent at the Referee position, so I spent an awful lot of time on intentional grounding. “Intentional” means exactly that. You have to give high school QBs a lot of leeway when you’re making a judgment based on the absence of a receiver in the area. They really make some awful throws, especially when contacted, off balance, or as in your instance, falling. In most cases their mechanics aren’t nearly good enough to have any sort of accuracy if they get out of their normal arm angle. So, if there’s any doubt, it’s not intentional grounding.

It seems clear to me that he was not intentionally throwing the ball away but was intentionally throwing the ball to a receiver who turned out to be ineligible with no eligible receiver anywhere close.  We obviously don’t know whether or not he KNEW the receiver was ineligible or not.  Had he not thrown the ball he wouldve been sacked.  So was he grounding or just confused?  Does it matter?

[Bobref]

6 minutes ago, Purdue Pete said:

It seems clear to me that he was not intentionally throwing the ball away but was intentionally throwing the ball to a receiver who turned out to be ineligible with no eligible receiver anywhere close.  We obviously don’t know whether or not he KNEW the receiver was ineligible or not.  Had he not thrown the ball he wouldve been sacked.  So was he grounding or just confused?  Does it matter?

As with any IG foul, I’m going to say I would need to see it, know the game situation, blah, blah, blah... But what you’ve described sounds like intentional grounding.

[Huge Football Fan]

43 minutes ago, Bobref said:

As with any IG foul, I’m going to say I would need to see it, know the game situation, blah, blah, blah... But what you’ve described sounds like intentional grounding.

It seems to me what sometimes happens is if the O line catches/tries to catch the ball the crew will go with illegal touching and just skip past IG. Meaning of the ineligible never tried to catch it they would have IG but once they catch it they go with illegal touch. Has anyone ever seen a game where they went illegal touch decline and then IG? I’ve never seen that even though I think there are many times you could have both 

[Bobref]

26 minutes ago, Huge Football Fan said:

It seems to me what sometimes happens is if the O line catches/tries to catch the ball the crew will go with illegal touching and just skip past IG. Meaning of the ineligible never tried to catch it they would have IG but once they catch it they go with illegal touch. Has anyone ever seen a game where they went illegal touch decline and then IG? I’ve never seen that even though I think there are many times you could have both 

I would think the R would be especially sensitive about that when the pass is thrown from the end zone. But illegal touching is the easier call. Not much judgment involved there. It’s still loss of 5 yds., loss of down. But in this particular circumstance, the difference between the two enforcements is significant.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Bobref