Quote:
Originally posted by RamTime
Actually I was not asking about the tuck play, I understand that part of it. I was asking if officials are told that they can not guess on what a players intention was regardless of weather it is a QB throwing a football or an illegal block that may appear to be an accident. I am asking if their is anything specific that governs an official as to weather or not he is allowed to take into consideration what he believes a players intention was. Try to forget the specific play that this statement came from and just concentrate on the specific sentence that reads "it appears that the ref cannot take into consideration his intention." The reason I posted the entire comment was to give you the source. Also I gave the entire quote so nobody would mistake it as something it was not intended to be however once again it seems it was the wrong way to ask it. I ONLY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC SENTENCE.
|
First, you don't need to yell at us.
Second, its it pretty hard to "pass judgement" based on only one sentence. Also, why would you include an entire paragraph about Brady's arm if you just want to know about one sentence? That is a case by case subject. For intentional grounding, of course intent comes into play, while in the "tuck" situation, intent really does not come into play. If a QB goes to pump fake, then loses the ball as his arm comes forward we do not say "well, he only intented to pump, so it is a fumble." No, that will always be an incomplete pass.
Mike Sears brought up the issue of a face mask. A '5-yard' penalty is for an 'incidental' facemask. The opposite of incidental is
not intentional. If a defender practically rips the runners head off by the face mask, we do not let that go saying "he did not intend to do that."