Controversial Play in MN 3A title game

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I didn't slow the video down, but it looks fine to me. Until the rules committee makes a case play (Fed) or approved ruling (NCAA), I feel free to interpret the rule as allowing for momentum -- as long as the player the ball is being passed to is behind the passer, it is legal. Trying to rule on where on the field the ball was when it was released vs. where it was caught is nearly impossible for officials at the speed of the play absent replay.

You may feel free to interpret it that way, but I would say it's more ignoring rather than interpreting. I don't think there needs to be a case play or any odd clarification on 'momentum' when the black letter language is already very clear. As Middleman pointed out, it's the *initial* flight that counts, not some moving target with relation to the passer. The very definition of a backward pass says so:

"(rule 2-31) ART. 5 . . . A backward pass is a pass thrown with its initial direction parallel with or toward the runner's end line."

This ball was released at about the 34 and caught at about the 27. There is no possible way this was anything but a forward pass.

I can understand why it was missed, no one may have been at a great angle to see it with players all over the field and running very fast like this. But it was indeed a miss.

[bwburke94]

Undoubtably an IFP, but the miss is explainable.

[Rich]

Why does every missed call have to be a "controversy?"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Why does every missed call have to be a "controversy?"

Very good question.

Peace

[paulsonj72]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Very good question.

Peace

Tie game in the final minute and and was 3rd and 22. If the penalty for IFP was called they don't have the ball at the 5 and don't score(more than likely) on the next play. This play directly led to the next play going for a touchdown.(and the win)

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by paulsonj72

Tie game in the final minute and and was 3rd and 22. If the penalty for IFP was called they don't have the ball at the 5 and don't score(more than likely) on the next play. This play directly led to the next play going for a touchdown.(and the win)

If your aunt had....a mustache, she might be your uncle. Whether the play in question "directly led to the next play going for a touchdown" is about as far away from being relevant to football officiating, as the moon, and has absolutely nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the play in question.

With no offense intended to mathematics, either at the 10th grade, or PHD levels, the ONLY relevant question remains whether the pass was thrown "with it's initial direction towards the opponents's goal line", or not. Apparently, the call on the field was, "or not", and considering the added perspective provided by the submitted video, was the proper call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If your aunt had....a mustache, she might be your uncle. Whether the play in question "directly led to the next play going for a touchdown" is about as far away from being relevant to football officiating, as the moon, and has absolutely nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the play in question.

With no offense intended to mathematics, either at the 10th grade, or PHD levels, the ONLY relevant question remains whether the pass was thrown "with it's initial direction towards the opponents's goal line", or not. Apparently, the call on the field was, "or not", and considering the added perspective provided by the submitted video, was the proper call.

As one of my friends would say:

WRONG

[paulsonj72]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If your aunt had....a mustache, she might be your uncle. Whether the play in question "directly led to the next play going for a touchdown" is about as far away from being relevant to football officiating, as the moon, and has absolutely nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the play in question.

With no offense intended to mathematics, either at the 10th grade, or PHD levels, the ONLY relevant question remains whether the pass was thrown "with it's initial direction towards the opponents's goal line", or not. Apparently, the call on the field was, "or not", and considering the added perspective provided by the submitted video, was the proper call.

And fwiw I had no personal stake in the game. What happened after this play is that a TD was scored. If the IFP penalty had been called more than likely no TD would have been scored on the next play.(But in fairness the way the team in Purple was moving the ball they more than likely would have scored in those final seconds)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by paulsonj72

Tie game in the final minute and and was 3rd and 22. If the penalty for IFP was called they don't have the ball at the 5 and don't score(more than likely) on the next play. This play directly led to the next play going for a touchdown.(and the win)

If they stop them on the play after, we do not have a conversation about this. I doubt that it even was something known until later.

Also how many officials were on the game? You want a more accurate call, then add more officials. But they likely won't as that would make the most sense in the bigger picture even if it is for one play in a game. But this is the price of saving money. You make a difficult play, even more difficult by highlighting a play during the most important games and splitting hairs on tough plays.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If they stop them on the play after, we do not have a conversation about this. I doubt that it even was something known until later.

Also how many officials were on the game? You want a more accurate call, then add more officials. But they likely won't as that would make the most sense in the bigger picture even if it is for one play in a game. But this is the price of saving money. You make a difficult play, even more difficult by highlighting a play during the most important games and splitting hairs on tough plays.

Peace

Yup. Still using 5 on important games means there are going to be holes. You and I both know that.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by scrounge

"(rule 2-31) ART. 5 . . . A backward pass is a pass thrown with its initial direction parallel with or toward the runner's end line."

This ball was released at about the 34 and caught at about the 27. There is no possible way this was anything but a forward pass. .

Perhaps "undoubtable" was the WRONG word to use, as your evidence contradicts your conclusion. As you correctly state, NFHS 2-31-5 defines a "backwards pass" as being determined by it's initial direction being (either) "parallel with or toward the runner's end line".

You might also consider, NFHS 2-31-2 which defines a forward pass as determined by "its initial direction TOWARD the opponent's end line.", which repeatedly viewing the provided video, suggests is clearly NOT the case, in this instance.

Once again, it seems until we are able to place a game official(s) floating above the field at the same angle, as multiple cameras, some of us need to accept the judgment of competent, experienced field officials, at ground level, operating in "real" time, rather than nitpicking at, what often proves to be, imaginary scabs..

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Perhaps "undoubtable" was the WRONG word to use, as your evidence contradicts your conclusion. As you correctly state, NFHS 2-31-5 defines a "backwards pass" as being determined by it's initial direction being (either) "parallel with or toward the runner's end line".

You might also consider, NFHS 2-31-2 which defines a forward pass as determined by "its initial direction TOWARD the opponent's end line.", which repeatedly viewing the provided video, suggests is clearly NOT the case, in this instance.

Once again, it seems until we are able to place a game official(s) floating above the field at the same angle, as multiple cameras, some of us need to accept the judgment of competent, experienced field officials, at ground level, operating in "real" time, rather than nitpicking at, what often proves to be, imaginary scabs..

What on earth are you blabbering about? No amount of odd capitalization or weirdly random bolding would make that any less nonsensical. It was clearly, indisputably a forward pass, and totally understandable why it would be very difficult to catch in real time given the speed of movement and placement of players and officials on such a play.

[Rich]

It's not easy to get with microscopic precision, but the idea is to note the passer's yard line and the receiver's yard line -- if the crew had even gotten close on this, this would've been an obvious flag.

[robbie]

I have no idea of the rule in any rule sets, but the factor many are not considering is the "downfield" velocity of the runner and thus the ball.

Assume the runner is carrying the ball at 14MPH (approx 6 seconds for 40 yards) and tosses the ball exactly parallel to the yard lines. The path of the ball prior to reception would be forward (with respect to the yard lines) with an initial velocity of 14MPH.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by robbie

I have no idea of the rule in any rule sets, but the factor many are not considering is the "downfield" velocity of the runner and thus the ball.

Assume the runner is carrying the ball at 14MPH (approx 6 seconds for 40 yards) and tosses the ball exactly parallel to the yard lines. The path of the ball prior to reception would be forward (with respect to the yard lines) with an initial velocity of 14MPH.

there's not really a need for physics, newtonian or otherwise....the runner may have imparted a force perfectly parallel to the end line with the toss, but if his running imparted another force forward, the initial flight of the ball will, indeed, be forward per the definition.

The ball was thrown at about the 35 yard line, it was caught at about the 27 yd line. Barring any post-toss forces like extreme and fortuitous wind, this was a forward pass. And completely understandable why it was missed - only replay could get this in all but the luckiest circumstances.