Intention

[RamTime]

I read this paragraph and the source is not what you would call solid by any stretch of the imagination so I was wondering about intention. and what you guys know about this if anything.

Specifically the part that reads: "it appears that the ref cannot take into consideration his intention"

Noone questioned whether Brady's arm was moving, we were all questioning his intention. However, it appears that the ref cannot take into consideration his intention. Kinda like in hockey where if the goalie shoots the puck out of the rink its automatically a penalty, and the ref is given no option to interpret what the goalie was trying to do.

[JugglingReferee]

[kdf5]

Please don't feed the trolls.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by RamTime
I read this paragraph and the source is not what you would call solid by any stretch of the imagination so I was wondering about intention. and what you guys know about this if anything.

Specifically the part that reads: "it appears that the ref cannot take into consideration his intention"

So, anybody want to take a stab at ruling on Ram-Fan’s intent ?

[Texoma_LJ]

Is he asking was Brady's intention to get out of the pocket ?????

[Dommer1]

Need more info on the play.

[Mark Dexter]

Are you talking about the tuck rule play???

As I recall, that game was during my freshman year of college. I graduated over a month ago.

Give it up!

[jjrye22]

Probably about a Forward pass/fumble, right?
A ref can't decide if he thought the ball was being passed (if the QB intended to release it or not), so automatically if the arm has started a forward movement, it is ruled a forward pass.

James

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Are you talking about the tuck rule play???

As I recall, that game was during my freshman year of college. I graduated over a month ago.

Give it up!

Maybe he really has a dislike for the New England Patriots. The game with the infamous tuck rule didn't involve the STL Rams. It was Oakland vs New England in a playoff game.

I don't know if the tuck rule has been modified since that time, but it now reads something like this:

A player who begins an intentional movement of his arm forward and afterwards aborts the throw and tries to tuck the football and loses possession, it is ruled an incomplete forward pass. If he recocks his arm to throw and loses it, it is a fumble.

[RamTime]

Actually I was not asking about the tuck play, I understand that part of it. I was asking if officials are told that they can not guess on what a players intention was regardless of weather it is a QB throwing a football or an illegal block that may appear to be an accident. I am asking if their is anything specific that governs an official as to weather or not he is allowed to take into consideration what he believes a players intention was. Try to forget the specific play that this statement came from and just concentrate on the specific sentence that reads "it appears that the ref cannot take into consideration his intention." The reason I posted the entire comment was to give you the source. Also I gave the entire quote so nobody would mistake it as something it was not intended to be however once again it seems it was the wrong way to ask it. I ONLY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC SENTENCE.

[devdog69]

Officials in all sports are asked to judge intention.
Intentional foul, intentional grounding, all have the word intention, i.e., judgement IS involved. You provide guidelines to assist us in those judgements in the rules but very rarely do the say 'don't use your judgement call this when ______ happens'

[mikesears]

DevDog69 has nailed it. In some cases, accidental fouls are penalized. In other cases, intent must be determined before it is flagged. This can be true for the same type of foul. An example is the false start rule. Player's can simply forget the snap count and move prior to the snap. In other cases, officials must determine if the act of moving was intended to draw the defense to encroach.

Intentional grounding is a rule where we must make an effort to determine intent before we flag it. Guidelines are in place to assist us in determining intent but we still use our judgment.

Safety fouls, like grabbing the facemask, are always called despite intent.

To sum up, game officials sometimes do need to determine intent before flagging something. Other times, intent does not need to be determined because the action is a foul regardless of intent.

[Edited by mikesears on Jul 19th, 2005 at 09:19 AM]

[PSU213]

Originally posted by RamTime
Actually I was not asking about the tuck play, I understand that part of it. I was asking if officials are told that they can not guess on what a players intention was regardless of weather it is a QB throwing a football or an illegal block that may appear to be an accident. I am asking if their is anything specific that governs an official as to weather or not he is allowed to take into consideration what he believes a players intention was. Try to forget the specific play that this statement came from and just concentrate on the specific sentence that reads "it appears that the ref cannot take into consideration his intention." The reason I posted the entire comment was to give you the source. Also I gave the entire quote so nobody would mistake it as something it was not intended to be however once again it seems it was the wrong way to ask it. I ONLY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC SENTENCE.

First, you don't need to yell at us.

Second, its it pretty hard to "pass judgement" based on only one sentence. Also, why would you include an entire paragraph about Brady's arm if you just want to know about one sentence? That is a case by case subject. For intentional grounding, of course intent comes into play, while in the "tuck" situation, intent really does not come into play. If a QB goes to pump fake, then loses the ball as his arm comes forward we do not say "well, he only intented to pump, so it is a fumble." No, that will always be an incomplete pass.

Mike Sears brought up the issue of a face mask. A '5-yard' penalty is for an 'incidental' facemask. The opposite of incidental is not intentional. If a defender practically rips the runners head off by the face mask, we do not let that go saying "he did not intend to do that."

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by RamTime
Actually I was not asking about the tuck play, I understand that part of it. I was asking if officials are told that they can not guess on what a players intention was regardless of weather it is a QB throwing a football or an illegal block that may appear to be an accident. I am asking if their is anything specific that governs an official as to weather or not he is allowed to take into consideration what he believes a players intention was. Try to forget the specific play that this statement came from and just concentrate on the specific sentence that reads "it appears that the ref cannot take into consideration his intention." The reason I posted the entire comment was to give you the source. Also I gave the entire quote so nobody would mistake it as something it was not intended to be however once again it seems it was the wrong way to ask it. I ONLY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC SENTENCE.

The word is WHETHER, not WEATHER. W-H-E-T-H-E-R.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

The word is WHETHER, not WEATHER. W-H-E-T-H-E-R.

Oh, yeah, I mean't to bring that up too. Weather is partly cloudy, chance of showers, etc. Whether would be as in, "whether or not..."