Controversial Play in MN 3A title game

[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.

[Mbilica]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.

You mean to say that there is no need for math in this case. What you used to describe your argument was also physics. Conceptual physics, perhaps. But it is absolutely Newtonian mechanics to say that the runner's forward motion prior to releasing a lateral pass results in motion that is still forward. You can use vectors to describe it, use trigonometry to calculate the components of the ball's motion, but in the end, you are right that we don't need to know exactly to what degree the ball moved forward. It is pretty obvious that it must have gone forward.

The thing is, we can't use the yard line where it was thrown and caught to explain. That isn't the NFHS Rule. The initial direction is the NFHS rule, and physics is pretty much the only tool we can use to explain why this is a foul at the high school level.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Robert Goodman]

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.

If you think its initial direction wasn't forward, what do you think produced such a strong change in direction while the ball was in the air? Wind?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If you think its initial direction wasn't forward, what do you think produced such a strong change in direction while the ball was in the air? Wind?

I wouldn't think wind velocity was a necessary calculation, all you have to do is look at the video and see which way he threw the ball, which was ABSOLUTELY NOT towards his opponents end line. What direction the ball was thrown is the salient factor, not where it might have eventually been caught.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I wouldn't think wind velocity was a necessary calculation, all you have to do is look at the video and see which way he threw the ball, which was ABSOLUTELY NOT towards his opponents end line. What direction the ball was thrown is the salient factor, not where it might have eventually been caught.

Sure it was. Maybe not at a 90 degree angle, but it was.

I'm not sure why this is such a hard call. Get an approximate yard line of the throw and the catch, discuss it afterwards, and drop a flag.

Using physics or differential calculus to make a call in a HS FB game is silly.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sure it was. Maybe not at a 90 degree angle, but it was.

I'm not sure why this is such a hard call. Get an approximate yard line of the throw and the catch, discuss it afterwards, and drop a flag.

I know exactly why it's a hard call in NCAA, where the rule invokes those 2 points (and would be even harder in Fed): because unless you have the high vantage point like the camera or are close to those yard lines yourself, it's hard to get those points. In Fed theoretically you'd have to be either be practically on the yard line of the passer at the time of release, or practically in line with the pass's initial direction. I bet that in Fed in close cases they actually use NCAA's determination and then allow for the possibility of windage. Even if the ball crosses one of the solid stripes, it's hard to tell which sides it was released from & touched on if it's close and you don't have one of those good vantage points.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I know exactly why it's a hard call in NCAA, where the rule invokes those 2 points (and would be even harder in Fed): because unless you have the high vantage point like the camera or are close to those yard lines yourself, it's hard to get those points. In Fed theoretically you'd have to be either be practically on the yard line of the passer at the time of release, or practically in line with the pass's initial direction. I bet that in Fed in close cases they actually use NCAA's determination and then allow for the possibility of windage. Even if the ball crosses one of the solid stripes, it's hard to tell which sides it was released from & touched on if it's close and you don't have one of those good vantage points.

It's the same prinicpal as getting a spot on a pass beyond the line or the spot for intentional grounding -- find the feet and come up to the spot. It's not that hard.

[chapmaja]

One thing nobody is mentioning in this discussion is the actions of the defensive player and his potential impact (from an officials point of view) on the play. I watched the video several times to see if the ball was deflected as it was thrown. People have asked about a force imparted on the ball. The official in question may have, as I suspected then watched to disprove, that the runner was throwing it backwards but it was deflected forward by the defensive player swiping at the ball. As I said I watched several times to see if that happened, but I wasn't running at speed watching the play live either.

I do think it was a missed call, but I can see why it was not called also.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I wouldn't think wind velocity was a necessary calculation, all you have to do is look at the video and see which way he threw the ball, which was ABSOLUTELY NOT towards his opponents end line. What direction the ball was thrown is the salient factor, not where it might have eventually been caught.

The direction the ball was thrown was pretty clearly forward from the sideline shot, and remarkably clearly forward from the end zone shot. The cameras had the advantage of high vantage points that the officials couldn't have, but they didn't create an optical illusion of forward motion that wasn't there.

The passer's arms may have been pointing backward, but the motion of the ball in his hands as he propelled it and just after he let go of it was forward. With that much forward momentum from his run, it would've taken a lot more backswinging of his arms to kill the forward motion of the ball.