Controversy in Florida

[OverAndBack]

Incomplete pass or fumble?

Camera person and referee were both in great position. You make the call.

(PS the comments are funny)

[JRutledge]

It looks like it was a pass. You know what it was a dumb play by the quarterback. You are giving up a possibility to make a play and make it harder for the official to rule properly on the play. I have no sympathy for the team that was throwing the ball away. He was too cute for his own good.

Peace

[OverAndBack]

(I think it was the punter, but no matter.)

[JugglingReferee]

Easy call: incomplete pass. We as officials should never believe that a play near the goal line will be run-of-the-mill. Be ready for anything, and step up when required.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

(I think it was the punter, but no matter.)

I have called that a few times near the goal line if that was the punter. It was a dump play anyway.

Peace

[dumbref]

Agree it was a pass - Mat have been IG as well. Can't tell if there was someone out of the frame.

[BoBo]

Incomplete as well and yes intentional grounding could be possible

[Rich]

IG is likely. It's also clearly a forward pass, although I could see the referee get screened at the last second here.

[MRH]

Incomplete pass.

Based on the view of the video I would rule IG. With the loss of down provision (assuming it was 4th down) R takes possession just outside the goal line.

[prosec34]

Incomplete pass. Regarding IG, it looks like 45 might be an intended target. Hard to tell, though.

[JRutledge]

Well that is if you decide that the attempt to get rid of the pass was not purposely to save a loss. I really do not think he was trying to complete a pass. At least he wasn't with that motion.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that is if you decide that the attempt to get rid of the pass was not purposely to save a loss. I really do not think he was trying to complete a pass. At least he wasn't with that motion.

Me either. Ruling correctly here would've delayed a touchdown by one play (likely).

[Ed Hickland]

Having become an "expert" on controversial plays I would call this an incomplete pass.

The referee is moving toward the runner/passer as he is still moving and appears he may have been shielded.

Remember, we are all watching from the comfort of our living room, office, den, etc. with stop motion video.

Got to love the comments "His hand was under the ball, so it was not a shovel pass."

[ajmc]

Unfortunately, the video doesn't provide a wide enough view of the play to make a solid judgment. It does clearly show the QB passed the ball underhanded, rather than fumbled. The pass was almost immediately deflected and it's path changed by the deflection.

Receiver #45 then comes into the picture from the direction the QB appears to have been aiming his underhand toss. There seems to be more than enough evidence to support the judgment that the toss of the ball was deliberate, thus being a forward pass, and that #45 was an eligible (assuming he lined up in an eligible position) receiver, who was the intended target of that pass.

This is a perfect example of the view presented by the camera not being wide enough to understand exactly what was hapening to make a solid conclusion.

[OverAndBack]

Again, punter.

I wouldn't expect a punter to be as skilled as a quarterback in making a throw of any kind, but, then again, I would also expect a punter to panic more and to be more likely to throw a ball away. But if there's a player in the area, you have an out. But unless I'm screened, if I see that arm movement (especially if the ball goes forward), I've got an incomplete pass.