Controversial Play in MN 3A title game

[paulsonj72]

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

[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.

[Middleman]

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.

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Mbilica]

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

[Robert Goodman]

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.

[Mbilica]

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