Illegal Forward Pass Ruling in MIN-GB Game

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by MJT

I am talking to one of the officials on the crew on Tuesday. I am looking forward to seeing what the discussion was. He was involved in the conversation they had as he was one of the wings. I sent him a text and he replied that as he was getting off his plane 2nt and to call him Tuesday. I hope he will allow me to share their conversation on the board to clear it up.

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

That may be true, but the ball also has to cross the neutral zone.

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

[JugglingReferee]

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.

[OverAndBack]

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.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by Forksref

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.

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.

[OverAndBack]

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).

[Bob M.]

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."

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

I guess very hard.. for those guys to use the wrong terminology in a game. So all i was trying to say, is why did he... I didnt need all your sarcasm

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.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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

When throwing the ball away, yes.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Using wrong terminology in an error. At the NFL level, they should be dinged for such an error. Why have IG is there's no need for it? The calling official definitely erred on the play.

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.

[Trap]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

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."

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 ).

[JugglingReferee]

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

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

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"?

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

[JasonTX]

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.

[OverAndBack]

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

[Umpmazza]

[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.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

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.

Or Mike Carey.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

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

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?

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

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.)

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.

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 does Corrente have to do with it?

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

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