Controversial Play in MN 3A title game
 

IN the final minute of the Minnesota 3A title game the team in purple got a 1st down and a big gain on a 3rd and 22 play. There was debate whether or not the 2nd backward pass was forward or not. Thoughts on the play. even if a penalty had been called for an illegal forward pass the loss of down provision would not have applied as the ball would have been past the line to gain with the penalty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hze8cme-Ed0

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hze8cme-Ed0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

I'm not familiar enough with NCAA rules, as you are in Texas, but FED rules do not "allow for momentum" and the relative position of the players has no bearing on the definition of a forward pass. By FED rules it is the direction of the initial flight of the ball with respect to the opponent's goal line that determines whether a pass is forward or backward. The pass in this play should have been ruled to be an illegal forward pass.

To put it in perspective, do not most forward passes - even those that are behind the line of scrimmage - allow for the movement of the receiver? Don't be fooled by the movement of the passer. The pass is thrown to arrive at the spot where the receiver will be, not where he was.

JMO

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.

Undoubtably an IFP, but the miss is explainable.

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

Very good question.

Peace

Good play to look at. I can totally see why it was missed. It would have been backwards had the players both been standing still, and I would guess that the officials judged it that way. Obvious IFP from the video. Which officials do you think would be in the best position to see it? I would think it has to be the L or the H in a 5 man crew. I'm not sure anyone else would get it in a 7 man crew either.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

In Usenet some years ago the consensus was that in rugby the ruling is as Texas Aggie would have it, relating it to the motion of the passing player rather than the absolute direction over the ground. However, the rules of all the major American football codes clearly go otherwise; they differ as to specifics, but all relate to absolute direction as referred to the field.

It's understandable that they'd want it otherwise in rugby if for no other reason that there's only the referee who can call a forward pass. If you're not close to the yard line of the passer in Fed, or able to identify the points of origin and then touching of the pass in NCAA, it'd be a lot easier for you to see whether the passer's putting the ball "behind him" than the absolute direction of the pass. However, even in rugby my understanding is that they'll call it a forward pass if the passer collides with an opponent immediately after releasing the ball, causing the ball to be more easily seen to be traveling ahead of the passer, in one of those momentum cases.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

I am struck by the absolute disdain for 10th grade level arithmetic I am reading here. Calling it Differential Calculus is silly. HS officials have to rule on planes of the goal line and sideline, lines to gain, rectangular free blocking zones, neutral zones on scrimmage plays and free kicks, as well as manage forward or backward on a pass. This is all geometry and basic physics, with only arithmetic math. When players and the ball move with speed and direction, officials have to use their innate background in physics and math to make judgements throughout the game. On this forum, we can't really describe these judgements without mentioning principles like force, direction, speed, etc, that happen to be common to math and physics as well as ball games. Using physics to describe how things work makes officiating easier, not harder. We can use this play to make a prediction about how we will call a similar play if we see it on the field in one of our games. That's because the physics of the situation will be the same. Disparaging math and science for those of us that find comfort in those explanations makes it appear that we all disagree, when in fact, we all agree on this play and that it is a foul.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

Good point. On this play, only the H or L is going to have a look at whether the 2nd pitch was forward, and it was so far downfield, it is probably in a blind spot.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk