2024 non-GT games thread

[Root4GT]

You can. We're going to use the term face-guarding because when we say it EVERYONE knows exactly what we're talking about.

That's the purpose of oral language and the reason dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive. Whatever it takes to convey the idea you're trying to share. When someone uses the term face-guarding, we all know what that means. If you're not face-guarding and there's incidental contact, chances are, PI won't be called. If you are face-guarding and there's incidental contact, chances are PI will be called. Makes it much easier to convey the idea of what happened in far fewer words. So, you can just call it what you want, and so will we, and we'll all understand each other.

LOL. A well written disinformation paragraph. “we All” is a clearly false statement. Just read this thread. Many think Face Guarding is infact a penalty. It is not.

There are Agencies that could give you a side gig. You have influenced many into being believers. Is available. The guy who contacts you will be a Secret Agent Man.

 

[bobongo]

LOL. A well written disinformation paragraph. “we All” is a clearly false statement. Just read this thread. Many think Face Guarding is infact a penalty. It is not.

There are Agencies that could give you a side gig. You have influenced many into being believers. Is available. The guy who contacts you will be a Secret Agent Man.

The way it's written is somewhat ambiguous, but it sounds like face guarding combined with "contact" (incidental) is indeed a penalty:

Ask the Official: Face guarding in itself is illegal only within high school rules

blogs.usafootball.com

"In the NFL, by rule, face guarding is allowed but like at the college level that changes if contact is made."

Sounds like it's much the same as not facing the ball. If contact is made by a defender not facing the ball or if there's face guarding (with contact), it is indeed a penalty. What is no longer a penalty is face guarding without contact.

Face guarding "in itself" is only illegal in high school.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So, here is what I think we have established.

1. Face guarding is a term that was frequently used by announcers to describe a penalty in which the defender had his back to the ball and was trying to block the receiver’s vision while also blocking the path of the ball.

2. Face guarding is not a penalty or a phrase found in the NFL or college rule book.

3. What announcers incorrectly referred to as “face guarding” was only a penalty if the defender was not playing the ball, had his back to the ball, and made contact with the receiver, no matter how inconsequential the contact may have appeared. Had the defender turned around to make the play, incidental contact is often allowed, due to both players getting position to play the ball.

4. The use of back shoulder, come back to the ball, type pass plays seems to have increased the number of borderline calls against defenders with their backs to the play. Subjectivity may have increased due to the issues of “both players fighting for position,” and the issue of “catchable ball or not,” becoming more difficult to define in these types of plays. Ticky-tacky penalties being called, and seemingly egregious penalties not being called, are evidence of how subjective these types of pass plays are when trying to interpret the rules.

5. The only substantive factor of pass interference is whether the defender made contact with the receiver before the arrival of the ball. Everything after that is a judgement call based on extenuating circumstances as the ref sees it.

6. There is no reason to use the term “face guarding” since it describes nothing that actually impacts an interference call.

 

[stinger78]

So, here is what I think we have established.

1. Face guarding is a term that was frequently used by announcers to describe a penalty in which the defender had his back to the ball and was trying to block the receiver’s vision while also blocking the path of the ball.

2. Face guarding is not a penalty or a phrase found in the NFL or college rule book.

3. What announcers incorrectly referred to as “face guarding” was only a penalty if the defender was not playing the ball, had his back to the ball, and made contact with the receiver, no matter how inconsequential the contact may have appeared. Had the defender turned around to make the play, incidental contact is often allowed, due to both players getting position to play the ball.

4. The use of back shoulder, come back to the ball, type pass plays seems to have increased the number of borderline calls against defenders with their backs to the play. Subjectivity may have increased due to the issues of “both players fighting for position,” and the issue of “catchable ball or not,” becoming more difficult to define in these types of plays. Ticky-tacky penalties being called, and seemingly egregious penalties not being called, are evidence of how subjective these types of pass plays are when trying to interpret the rules.

5. The only substantive factor of pass interference is whether the defender made contact with the receiver before the arrival of the ball. Everything after that is a judgement call based on extenuating circumstances as the ref sees it.

6. There is no reason to use the term “face guarding” since it describes nothing that actually impacts an interference call.

Seems your 3 and 6 contradict each other.

 

[bobongo]

Seems your 3 and 6 contradict each other.

I think he's saying announcers incorrectly and without reason use "face guarding" when they mean the defender's back was to the ball.
Face guarding was a rare penalty even when the act by itself was illegal even without contact.

However, face guarding combined with incidental contact can draw an interference call. But what strikes me is that you can't very well face guard while facing the ball, so your back would pretty much have to be toward the ball, anyway, for face guarding to occur. Having your back to the ball combined with incidental contact is a penalty, anyway. So, the only way for there to be face guarding without your back to the ball would be if you were facing the ball and had eyes in the back of your head to be able to see well enough to know where the defender's eyes are while shielding them.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Seems your 3 and 6 contradict each other.

How so?

“Face guarding” isn’t the point of the call. Physical contact is. You can have your back to the ball all day long and never get called for a penalty if you don’t touch the receiver.

 

[bobongo]

How so?

“Face guarding” isn’t the point of the call. Physical contact is. You can have your back to the ball all day long and never get called for a penalty if you don’t touch the receiver.

But it's the combination of the two that draws the foul.
Face guarding + incidental contact = P.I.
Back to the ball + incidental contact = P.I.
Face guarding or having one's back to the ball without any contact does not = P.I.

 

[stinger78]

But it's the combination of the two that draws the foul.
Face guarding + incidental contact = P.I.
Back to the ball + incidental contact = P.I.
Face guarding or having one's back to the ball without any contact does not = P.I.

Face guarding eliminated incidental contact.

 

[orientalnc]

Here is the text of NCAA rule 7, articles 8 & 9, which cover pass interference. Note, the words "Face Guarding" do not appear in the rule.

Article 8 - Illegal Contact and Pass Interference​

a. During a down in which a legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone, illegal contact by Team A and Team B players is prohibited from the time the ball is snapped until it is touched by any player or an official (A.R. 7-3-8-II).
b. Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents. It is not offensive pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-IV, V, X, XV and XVI):
1. When, after the snap, a Team A ineligible player immediately charges and contacts an opponent at a point not more than one yard beyond the neutral zone and maintains the contact for no more than three yards beyond the neutral zone. (A.R. 7-3-10-II)
2. When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball (A.R. 7-3-8-IX).
3. When the pass is in flight and two or more eligible players are in the area where they might receive or intercept the pass and an offensive player in that area impedes an opponent, and the pass is not catchable.
PENALTY—15 yards from the previous spot [S33].
c. Defensive pass interference is contact beyond the neutral zone by a Team B player whose intent to impede an eligible opponent is obvious and could prevent the opponent the opportunity of receiving a catchable forward pass. When in question, a legal forward pass is catchable. Defensive pass interference occurs only after a legal forward pass is thrown (A. R. 7-3-8-VII, VIII, XI and XII). It is not defensive pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-III and 7-3-9-III):
1. When, after the snap, opposing players immediately charge and establish contact with opponents at a point that is within one yard beyond the neutral zone.
2. When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball (A.R. 7-3-8-IX).
3. When a Team B player legally contacts an opponent before the pass is thrown (A.R. 7-3-8-III and X).
4. When there is contact by a Team B player that otherwise would be pass interference during a down in which a Team A potential kicker, from a scrimmage kick formation, simulates a scrimmage kick by throwing the ball high and deep.
PENALTY—Team A’s ball at the spot of the foul, first down, if the foul occurs fewer than 15 yards beyond the previous spot. If the foul occurs 15 or more yards beyond the previous spot, Team A’s ball, first down, 15 yards from the previous spot [S33].
When the ball is snapped on or inside the Team B 17-yard line and outside the Team B two-yard line, and the spot of the foul is on or inside the two-yard line, the penalty from the previous spot shall place the ball at the two-yard line, first down (A.R. 7-3-8 XIV).
No penalty enforced from outside the two-yard line may place the ball inside the two-yard line (Exception: On the Try when the snap is on or inside the three-yard line, Rule 10-2-5-b ). If the previous spot was on or inside the two-yard line, first down halfway between the previous spot and the goal line (Rule 10-2-6 Exception).

Article 9 - Pass Interference: Summary​

a. Either Team A or Team B legally may interfere with opponents behind the neutral zone.
b. Players of either team legally may interfere beyond the neutral zone after the pass has been touched (A.R. 7-3-9-I).
c. Defensive players legally may contact opponents who have crossed the neutral zone if the opponents are not in a position to receive a catchable forward pass.
1. Those infractions that occur during a down in which a forward pass crosses the neutral zone are pass interference infractions only if the receiver had the opportunity to receive a catchable forward pass.
2. Those infractions that occur during a down in which a forward pass does not cross the neutral zone are Rule 9-3-4 infractions and the penalty is enforced from the previous spot.
d. Pass interference rules apply only during a down in which a legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone (Rule 2-19-3 and Rule 7-3-8-a-b-and-c ).
e. Contact by Team B with an eligible receiver involving a personal foul that interferes with the reception of a catchable pass may be ruled either as pass interference or as a personal foul with the 15-yard penalty enforced from the previous spot. Rule 7-3-8 is specific about contact during a pass. However, if the interference involves an act that ordinarily would result in disqualification or ejection, the fouling player is disqualified or ejected from the game.
f. Physical contact is required to establish interference. (A.R. 7-3-8-I)
g. Each player has territorial rights, and incidental contact is ruled under “attempt to reach…the pass’’ in Rule 7-3-8. If opponents who are beyond the line collide while moving toward the pass, a foul by one or both players occurs only if intent to impede the opponent is obvious. It is pass interference only if a catchable forward pass is involved.
h. Pass interference rules do not apply after the pass has been touched anywhere inbounds by an inbounds player or has touched an official. If an opponent is fouled, the penalty is for the foul and not pass interference (A.R. 7-3-9-I).
i. After the pass has been touched, any player may execute a legal block during the remaining flight of the pass.
j. Tackling or grasping a receiver or any other intentional contact before the receiver touches the pass is evidence that the tackler is disregarding the ball and is therefore illegal.
k. Tackling or running into a receiver when a forward pass obviously is underthrown or overthrown is disregarding the ball and is illegal. This is not pass interference but a violation of Rule 9-1-12-a , which carries a penalty of 15 yards from the previous spot plus a first down. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified or ejected.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

But it's the combination of the two that draws the foul.
Face guarding + incidental contact = P.I.
Back to the ball + incidental contact = P.I.
Face guarding or having one's back to the ball without any contact does not = P.I.

It’s a distinction without a difference. Trying to distinguish between whether it was “back to the ball” or “face guarding” is pointless. The difference is contact.

If an announcer says the defender didn’t turn around he is trying to give further explanation on how the physical contact was a penalty, not trying to add a new rule.

Face guarding is not a penalty.

 

[bobongo]

Face guarding is not a penalty.

But neither is incidental contact a penalty without either face guarding or having one's back to the ball. It takes both.
I just don't see how you can very well face guard without having your back to the ball, so the issue of face guarding seems moot.

 

[Root4GT]

So, here is what I think we have established.

1. Face guarding is a term that was frequently used by announcers to describe a penalty in which the defender had his back to the ball and was trying to block the receiver’s vision while also blocking the path of the ball.

2. Face guarding is not a penalty or a phrase found in the NFL or college rule book.

3. What announcers incorrectly referred to as “face guarding” was only a penalty if the defender was not playing the ball, had his back to the ball, and made contact with the receiver, no matter how inconsequential the contact may have appeared. Had the defender turned around to make the play, incidental contact is often allowed, due to both players getting position to play the ball.

4. The use of back shoulder, come back to the ball, type pass plays seems to have increased the number of borderline calls against defenders with their backs to the play. Subjectivity may have increased due to the issues of “both players fighting for position,” and the issue of “catchable ball or not,” becoming more difficult to define in these types of plays. Ticky-tacky penalties being called, and seemingly egregious penalties not being called, are evidence of how subjective these types of pass plays are when trying to interpret the rules.

5. The only substantive factor of pass interference is whether the defender made contact with the receiver before the arrival of the ball. Everything after that is a judgement call based on extenuating circumstances as the ref sees it.

6. There is no reason to use the term “face guarding” since it describes nothing that actually impacts an interference call.

Well said!

 

[forensicbuzz]

Here is the text of NCAA rule 7, articles 8 & 9, which cover pass interference. Note, the words "Face Guarding" do not appear in the rule.

It is a term of art that everyone knows what is meant when someone uses it (yes, I'm using everyone with it's actually almost everyone and those that just want to be obstinate about it). Whether it's in the rule book or not doesn't change that fact that people know what it is when it's used. Additionally, my comment was about NFL not college. It's not in the NFL rulebook either, but the rule book does address a defender playing the ball not being a penalty (which means no face-guarding).

 

[TampaBuzz]

Can we find something other than face-guarding to discuss?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

But neither is incidental contact a penalty without either face guarding or having one's back to the ball. It takes both.
I just don't see how you can very well face guard without having your back to the ball, so the issue of face guarding seems moot.

I’m not sure what the argument is, or if there even is one.

The only question is whether the defender “interfered” with the receiver receiving the ball. The first distinction is whether there was contact. The second distinction is whether it was incidental or not. The third distinction is whether the defender was playing the ball or playing the receiver when incidental contact was made.

No further distinctions need to be made.

 

[orientalnc]

Can we find something other than face-guarding to discuss?

Well, there's a thread on firing Damon that might interest you. You can unfollow this thread, but that would deprive you of the certain knowledge that you can't learn much by following it.

 

[Root4GT]

It is a term of art that everyone knows what is meant when someone uses it (yes, I'm using everyone with it's actually almost everyone and those that just want to be obstinate about it). Whether it's in the rule book or not doesn't change that fact that people know what it is when it's used. Additionally, my comment was about NFL not college. It's not in the NFL rulebook either, but the rule book does address a defender playing the ball not being a penalty (which means no face-guarding).

Keep digging.

 

[TampaBuzz]

Well, there's a thread on firing Damon that might interest you. You can unfollow this thread, but that would deprive you of the certain knowledge that you can't learn much by following it.

Ha! The one on CDS has circled back on itself about 12 times now and this thread ain't far behind on this one tangential topic (which is at least one step removed from actual Non GT football games). Maybe we got stuck in a Dante's Inferno groundhog day type of thing? It is definately the off-season!

 

[Root4GT]

Ha! The one on CDS has circled back on itself about 12 times now and this thread ain't far behind on this one tangential topic (which is at least one step removed from actual Non GT football games). Maybe we got stuck in a Dante's Inferno groundhog day type of thing? It is definately the off-season!

 

[yeti92]