Monty is that Joe?

BTW, the call looked correct.

As for the Packer fan, you can't expect anyone who supports the team behind the Cheddar Curtain to be objective, especially when they are playing the purple. :cool:

Is the NFL rule that the ball must also reach the LS even if someone was in the area?

Did anyone see the liberal "in the area" that Corrente caled last night? "There is no flag for IG, as the ball was thrown to #34."

In the MIN-GB game, the ball was < 5 yards from the potential receiver. In the MNF game last night, I believe that the eligible was > 5 yards from the ball hitting the ground, and the ball certainly looked like it was spiked into the ground. #34 didn't even make a play for the ball, whereas the eligible in the MIN-GB game did, and only needed a half-second more to actually get a finger on it.

I don't see how both can be correct calls.

Great fanboy comment on the YouTube video (which isn't playing for me for some reason):

"Definitely not a safety, the refs were paid for this game. I'm not even a Packers fan and it was painfully obvious,"

God, I hate fanboys.

Joe is one of the deep wings on the crew, but he is not the one I'm talking to today. I know one of the shorts wings pretty well.

Receiver #84 is at the 10. Rodgers is in the end zone. There is an offensive player at the 5 (#25), but it looks like Rodgers was trying to get it to #84, based on where the ball lands (at the 8).

REPLY: I spoke to one of the officials on the game (probably the same one as MJT mentioned). He said that Mr. Pereira agreed with the R's call (although the announcement/signal wasn't exactly correct). The NFL has a subtle interpretation that when considering the possibility of IG, the throw "must be a natural act of passing the ball." Scooping it off the carpet and shoveling it forward I guess wasn't considered that "natural."

There was no sarcasm and there was no wrong terminology, partner. The play was an illegal forward pass. So he didn't say IG. Big deal.

When throwing the ball away, yes.

Wrong again, hoser. :)

The play was an IFP, so how can it be wrong.

I can't believe this topic has turned into a 4 page thread. :D

This is the type of thing that sounds like a boss trying to cover an employees butt, or an stupid rule writer.

Not saying it was right or wrong, but it was a close play. To say otherwise, to me is just an person, saying officials are never wrong. To me in high school this was obvious, in NFL with their rules, it was close. I don't put much credence in what Mr. Pereira says, he won't publically critize his officials. ( probably for good reason ).

TY Bob M. for the description of the NFL having this "natural throwing motion". THAT info makes sense...

The way I understand it, IG is a subset of IFP. If I am incorrect, I would like to know.

Yes, the R was correct by saying IFP because IG is a member of the set of IFPs, but he could have narrowed down the foul more. Also, all IFP also must carry the same penalty as IG in order for a mistake not to have been made between what was said and what was applied. If that is true, then what circumstances deem IG to be different than an IFP, and thus the need for IG?

Furthermore, but not calling it IG, when it appears that it should have been according to MP, the R is actually confusing players, coaches, and fans. And I *know* that the NFL is aware and concerned with such things. (They likely don't hold public sessions on NFL rules, but they do have the OR section on TA.)

Additionally, why did Corrente say "there is no foul for intentional grounding as #34 was in the area." Also, why do 99.99% of the time, do we hear "IG" from the R and not "IFP"?

What's next? Will Riveron say "grasping/tackling a non-ball carrier" instead of "holding"? :D

PS: I show a 2-page thread. If you change the number of posts per page, you will have less clicking to do. :P

We also have to rememeber that Riveron is new at R in the NFL so his mic skills need some work. I'm sure if this was Ed. Hoculi game we would have gotten a better explanation.

I would hope Pereira would address this tomorrow. Official Review has been kinda tame/lame lately.

[QUOTE=BktBallRef;549753]There was no sarcasm and there was no wrong terminology, partner. The play was an illegal forward pass. So he didn't say IG. Big deal.


/QUOTE]



The referee did call IFP.... that's what I was saying the whole time... I understand a IG is a IFP... I was just wanting to know why the WH said what he said, and if maybe by some chance the NFL had a ruling on this.

Or Mike Carey.

Why? Any foul by A in the end zone in that situation is going to be a safety.

Same enforcement in HS. I'd have to look it up for NFL.

Fans are always confused. Players, and coaches don't seem to be confused. Seems the most confused are a few HS officials and one Canuck. :)

What does Corrente have to do with it?

Nah, "grasping/tackling a non-ball carrier" isn't listed as an option. Illegal forward pass is.