Review of incomplete forward pass

[srvbob]

At the risk of asking a horribly stupid question, while watching the Falcons/Seahawks game, a particular replay review had me slightly confused and I would appreciate any assistance.

Scenario:

Atlanta's ball, less than 2:00 remaining in first half. Attempted forward pass in the field of play ruled incomplete; whistle blown, play dead. Seattle defender appeared to have intercepted the pass and, believing he did, gets up and proceeds to sprint towards the end zone as he was not touched; eventually realizes the play is over. Booth proceeds to initiate review, referee rules after review that Seattle defender did not have possession as the ball hit the ground. Play stands.

I'm confused as I was not aware such a play was reviewable. Assuming it is, and the Seattle defender was ruled to have intercepted the pass upon review, then where would Seattle have been awarded the ball? He was not down by contact, so had the whistle not blown he potentially would've run into the end zone for a touchdown. Would Seattle have been given possession at the point where the defender intercepted the pass, even though he was not down by contact? That hardly seems fair, robbing a team of field position or even a score because of an official blowing the whistle too soon.

Further, I was not aware an interception could be awarded on a reviewed forward pass in the first place. If an incomplete forward pass is indeed reviewable, is it not the only option then to rule it a complete forward pass? If the whistle is blown and play is dead on an incomplete pass, how then can that incomplete pass be turned into an interception via an instant replay review? I would think it would follow the same principle as the "down by contact" rule, i.e. if a team recovers an opponent's fumble but the runner is ruled down by contact, there is no review and thus no fumble recovery can be awarded as the whistle was blown and play is dead.

I hope I explained this clearly enough. Pardon my ignorance if I am completely off in my thinking.

Thanks.

[BktBallRef]

You're making this thing entirely too complicated.

All forward passes are reveiwable, to determine whether the ball was caught or not.

If the pass is initially ruled incomplete, and then ruled a catch upon review, then it belongs to the team catching the pass at the spot where it was blwon dead.

[MJT]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
You're making this thing entirely too complicated.

All forward passes are reveiwable, to determine whether the ball was caught or not.

If the pass is initially ruled incomplete, and then ruled a catch upon review, then it belongs to the team catching the pass at the spot where it was blwon dead.

BktBallRef hit it right on the head. If they ruled it an interception after the review, the ball would be awarded to B at that spot, since the whistle ended the down.

[SteveMcClellan]

Unless I'm way off base, the determining factor in whether a play is reviewable in cases like this is when the whistle blew. If a play is blown dead because an official believed that the runner was down by contact, and a review shows that he lost possession before going down, it's a near certainty that the whistle blew while the ball was loose. If the original ruling is overturned, we then have an inadvertent whistle, and (I'm assuming this is the case in the NFL) the ball would be awarded to the team that last possessed it at the spot which they did so. In other words, exactly where the ball was spotted originally. So, it may not even be that such a play isn't *allowed* to be reviewed, just that it would accomplish nothing to do so.

In the case of this play, however, we have a pass ruled incomplete while in the ball is being held by a player. If the call is reversed, we have an inadvertent after the defender caught the ball. The whistle would have killed the play, but action to that point would stand, and Seattle would've ended up with the ball at the spot where it became dead.

My rule of thumb is that a play is reviewable unless a judgment call (usually a penalty) would be the subject of the review, but if there was a whistle, its effect on an overturned call must be considered before deciding to review. (That's my rule of thumb because it makes sense to me and I've not seen any counterexamples. Corrections are welcomed.)

[srvbob]

I like the point about the inadvertant whistle. It seems to me that the whistle was simply blown too soon. If you can indeed award the defender the interception after review, then he has just been robbed, by the whistle, of either a touchdown or at the very least any yardage he would've gained as he was not down by contact and thus should've been able to advance the ball.

The basic issue that had me confused was that you have two options upon reviewing a play: let the play stand, or reverse it. The play was ruled an incomplete pass, so if you let it stand, it remains an incomplete pass and Atlanta keeps the ball. If the ruling is reversed, then the call goes from incomplete pass to complete pass (which of course it wasn't in this case). I could understand if Seattle was initially awarded an interception by the officials on the field, then it was taken away upon review. But there was no ruling of an interception on the play. It just didn't make sense to me that you could have a third option upon review and award an interception out of thin air, especially when the play was blown dead.

I need to stop thinking about this for the evening, I'm getting a headache. Thanks for the replies!

[Edited by srvbob on Jan 3rd, 2005 at 01:46 AM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by srvbob
It seems to me that the whistle was simply blown too soon.

The whistle wasn't blown too soon. The official on the field made his call and followed the mechanics to a tee. Just because the call is reversed, it's doesn't mean he handled the play mechanically incorrectly.

Again, you're just making this way harder than it has to be, partner. You say that Seattle was robbed of a TD. Well, perhaps, but if it wasn't for instant replay, they wouldn't have gotten the ball at all. Overall, I'd bet they were pleased just to get the ball.

Also, there's no guarantee that the player would have scored had it initially been ruled complete. If the whistle doesn't blow, the Falcons react differently.

[SteveMcClellan]

The basic issue that had me confused was that you have two options upon reviewing a play: let the play stand, or reverse it.

Yes. With a few exceptions, the referee is permitted to make what he deems to be the best call, given what he sees. He is allowed to reverse the call on the field, that being that the defender failed to catch the pass.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by srvbob
If the ruling is reversed, then the call goes from incomplete pass to complete pass (which of course it wasn't in this case). I could understand if Seattle was initially awarded an interception by the officials on the field, then it was taken away upon review. But there was no ruling of an interception on the play. It just didn't make sense to me that you could have a third option upon review and award an interception out of thin air, especially when the play was blown dead.

As already mentioned, I think you are making this too complicated. I'm not knowledgeable on NFL rules, but I believe the review is made to see if the pass is caught or not (regardless of what announcers or the R says about reviewing to see "if the pass was complete"). I did not see the play in question, so I cannot comment on the "correctness" of the call, but if the Seattle player intercepted the ball, the result of the replay is that the pass was caught.

I want to consider this on the IW question...in a different situation, A has the ball 3/12 from their own 15 yard line. A1 throws a low pass to A2 who may have caught the ball near the turf at A's 25 yard line (short of the LTG). It is ruled incompete and a whistle blows before A2 can stand up, and before he is touched by a B player, although the touching by a B played is imminent, and he would be "down" before he has a chance to cross the LTG. Upon review, however, it is shown to be a catch. If the NFL options are the same as NF for an IW, and if the whistle that blew is considered an IW, the A would have the option of replaying 3rd down. For those of you who know the NFL rules...can this happen?

Finally, I want to echo BktBallRef. Saying "robbing" the team of field position or a score is not fair to the officals, the other team, etc. As I said, I didn't see the play so I am unable to know if Atlanta stopped with the whistle, an Atlanta player had a chance to tackle the would be interceptor, etc.

[MJT]

Originally posted by PSU213

As already mentioned, I think you are making this too complicated. I'm not knowledgeable on NFL rules, but I believe the review is made to see if the pass is caught or not (regardless of what announcers or the R says about reviewing to see "if the pass was complete"). I did not see the play in question, so I cannot comment on the "correctness" of the call, but if the Seattle player intercepted the ball, the result of the replay is that the pass was caught.

I want to consider this on the IW question...in a different situation, A has the ball 3/12 from their own 15 yard line. A1 throws a low pass to A2 who may have caught the ball near the turf at A's 25 yard line (short of the LTG). It is ruled incompete and a whistle blows before A2 can stand up, and before he is touched by a B player, although the touching by a B played is imminent, and he would be "down" before he has a chance to cross the LTG. Upon review, however, it is shown to be a catch. If the NFL options are the same as NF for an IW, and if the whistle that blew is considered an IW, the A would have the option of replaying 3rd down. For those of you who know the NFL rules...can this happen?

Finally, I want to echo BktBallRef. Saying "robbing" the team of field position or a score is not fair to the officals, the other team, etc. As I said, I didn't see the play so I am unable to know if Atlanta stopped with the whistle, an Atlanta player had a chance to tackle the would be interceptor, etc.

I work NFL rules for semi pro ball. Here are the rules for IW in the NFL.
If an official inadvertantly sounds his whistle during a play, the ball becomes dead immediately.
a. If during a run, it is the offenses ball at the spot of the ball at the time of the whistle.
b. If during a backwards pass or fumble, it is the offenses ball at the spot of the ball at the time of the whistle. Exception: The ball is placed at the 1 yard line if the whistle sounds when the ball is loose in either end zone.
c. If during a kick, it is the recievers ball at the spot of the ball at the time of the whistle.
d. If during a forward pass from behind the LOS, the ball reverts to the passers at the previous spot. It is an incomplete pass.
e. If during a forward pass from beyond the LOS, the ball reverts to the passers at the spot of the pass. It is an illegal pass. The penalty is assessed from th spot of the pass.
f. If during a forward pass not from scrimmage, the ball reverts to the passers at the spot of the pass. It is an illegal pass. The penalty is assessed from th spot of the pass.
Note: Penalty enforcement following play blown dead by an inadvertant whistle is as ordinary for fouls during runs, passes, kicks, fumbles, and backwards passes.

So as you can see, it is not the same as in NF or NCAA except for during a run.

[Jim S]

The play was NOT recversed in this case. The only thing about the play that I didn't like was the explanation after ther review.
The replays could have gone either way, especially the way some of the reviews have gone this year.
It really wasn't clear.
But here we have a Referee that clearly states that "the ball came loose and hit the ground after the player had it in his grasp", something that no one else saw.
That includes the side guy who originally called the play. Some one on the field who shall remain nameless told me that the side said it hit the ground before the player gained possession.
Part of the fans' problems with reviews are some of the "explanations" coming from some of the Rs. I think they would be a lot better off just stated that the review did not show enough to reverse the on-field call.
This was such a case. It looked like the Seattle player MAY have had his hands under the ball, but there wasn't enough evidence to change the call.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by Jim S
The play was NOT recversed in this case. The only thing about the play that I didn't like was the explanation after ther review.
The replays could have gone either way, especially the way some of the reviews have gone this year.
It really wasn't clear.
But here we have a Referee that clearly states that "the ball came loose and hit the ground after the player had it in his grasp", something that no one else saw.
That includes the side guy who originally called the play. Some one on the field who shall remain nameless told me that the side said it hit the ground before the player gained possession.
Part of the fans' problems with reviews are some of the "explanations" coming from some of the Rs. I think they would be a lot better off just stated that the review did not show enough to reverse the on-field call.
This was such a case. It looked like the Seattle player MAY have had his hands under the ball, but there wasn't enough evidence to change the call.

I agree. In an instance like this they something to the effect of "the call is upheld and the pass is incomplete because the ball came loose and touched the ground," when in reality the call was "upheld" because there was not enough visual evidence to overrule the call (even though the call might have been wrong.