TY Bob M. for the description of the NFL having this "natural throwing motion". THAT info makes sense...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
There was no sarcasm and there was no wrong terminology, partner. The play was an illegal forward pass. So he didn't say IG. Big deal.
When throwing the ball away, yes.
Wrong again, hoser. 
The play was an IFP, so how can it be wrong.
I can't believe this topic has turned into a 4 page thread.  |
The way I understand it, IG is a subset of IFP. If I am incorrect, I would like to know.
Yes, the R was correct by saying IFP because IG is a member of the set of IFPs, but he could have narrowed down the foul more. Also, all IFP also must carry the same penalty as IG in order for a mistake not to have been made between what was said and what was applied. If that is true, then what circumstances deem IG to be different than an IFP, and thus the need for IG?
Furthermore, but not calling it IG, when it appears that it should have been according to MP, the R is actually confusing players, coaches, and fans. And I *know* that the NFL is aware and concerned with such things. (They likely don't hold public sessions on NFL rules, but they do have the OR section on TA.)
Additionally, why did Corrente say "there is no foul for
intentional grounding as #34 was in the area." Also, why do 99.99% of the time, do we hear "IG" from the R and not "IFP"?
What's next? Will Riveron say "grasping/tackling a non-ball carrier" instead of "holding"?
PS: I show a 2-page thread. If you change the number of posts per page, you will have less clicking to do. :P