Illegal Forward Pass Ruling in MIN-GB Game

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Trap

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 ).

I believe "natural throwing motion" is also part of the tuck rule. So it's not the first time Parierra has used this reference.

[MJT]

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."

You are correct Bob, it is our mutual friend. I had a meeting, so missed my call time and I know he is busy tonight, but I'm looking forward to discussing that and a few other things with him.
Glad to know they got it right. They don't make many mistakes, that is for darn sure. There are so many "little trinkets" in the NFL rules that we do not know and that is why we do not always understand their rulings.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

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

Yes, the stuff they go over isn't really interesting. I think last week they had a clip where a player caught a kickoff with a foot out of bounds and the foul was called; they spent about half the time of the whole segment going over this, I could have explained it in 15 seconds...and on top of that I believe that was the third time that topic has come up in the past 2 years.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

Because things matter. I believe NFL officials are graded on getting the fouling player's number; of course they want fouls explained correctly. Just because IG is a type of IFP does not mean one should signal IFP when there is IG.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

In both the NCAA and NFL passes thrown to conserve yardage are penalized different than other IG fouls.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

No, it is not an option. The NFL rule book is not specific as to what signal is to be given, although it would make sense to give the IG signal when IG is called. In the NCAA book passes thrown to conserve yardage specifically listed to use whatever signal number IG is, and other IFP such as 2nd forward pass are to use the IFP signal.

[hawkishowl20]

Originally Posted by MJT

Not only did he throw the pass only to save yardage, but he had no idea there was a receiver in the area. He never looked up at all, he just got the ball and threw it underhand as he as falling to the ground in the EZ, which he knew would be a safety, so he was trying to avoid it with his pass. The ball never got to the LOS. It was the correct call.

You should judge intent in intentional grounding in a roundabout or indirect way, not guessing what the player was thinking directly. You judge based on what happened and work your way back through all the facts not what you think he was thinking. The ball practically hitting an eligible receiver is a fact that is hard to work back through to get to his intent to ground. It would have been pretty lucky if he had completed that pass having no idea that a receiver was there. In addition, I KNOW HE KNEW the receiver was there. They were running an Auggie pass concept on that play which is about the first pass concept any QB learns. Slant arrow mirror, he threw to the arrow, oh my gosh that’s impossible he didn’t even look at him. He has only thrown an arrow route under a slant what 2000 times in his life?

Originally Posted by JasonTX

In this play that receiver wasn’t even close in my opinion to having an opportunity to catch the pass.

It landed about a yard ,yard½, 2 yards away from him. It skipped what 6 inches from his hand on one bounce after he gave up on it? The thrower was falling when throwing which affected his ability to throw accurately. Do we call penalties on lack of ability now? What is “in the vicinity,” if that isn’t? It would have to hit the receiver or be a complete pass to be any closer.

Originally Posted by JasonTX

Looked like a good call to me since it was obvious he was just trying to get the ball out of the end zone. There was a receiver in the area but he didn't have a reasonable oppurtunity to catch it.

All incomplete passes are now intentional grounding. Trajectory is a yard or two off, they were “in the area” but since the trajectory was slightly off and they didn’t adjust they had no “ reasonable opportunity” with an o not a u .”

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

He did not get out of the tackle box and the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage and from my understanding of the rule that criteria must be met.

He actually is outside the tackle box. His feet are inside it but the ball is not. The TE Humphrey is on the right hash at the start of the play the ball is thrown from the right hash… tackles are inside of TE’s so hence, outside tackle box. Close call, but “obvious” to JasonTX. It’s amazing how that reference point is right there for everyone to see and no one uses it.

Originally Posted by JasonTX

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

Putting aside being outside the tackle box a receiver in the vicinity trumps not crossing the LOS., it’s a “or” clause. The ball must cross “ooooor” be in the vicinity of a receiver. So, having met both of the criteria defining what is NOT intentional grounding… this is…. Uhhh… Uhhh… we have to change the call again Alberto that doesn’t make any sense either… Uhhh how ‘bout Unsportsmanlike conduct, underhand pass in the end zone, safety. Uhhh… wait that’s totally made up, uhhh unnatural throw in the end zone safety. Wait that’s weak considering all flips, shovels, tosses, behind the back twist throws are legal. Uhhh that only applies in this case because it was close and cheap and ughhh I know his intent and ughhhh…. Stop “struuugggggaaling” Alberto.

Advice to Alberto don’t change a bad call to another bad call because it’s more justifiable than the first bad call. It’s annoying and time consuming to deconstruct. Although it is hilarious.

[hawkishowl20]

ughhh his shoe strings were in the tackle box... maybe. The TE actually lines up inside the hash and the ball is on the hash when thrown... the width of the TE, the space between him and the tackle, and the space between the TE and the Hash is how far outside the box he was.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by hawkishowl20

You should judge intent in intentional grounding in a roundabout or indirect way, not guessing what the player was thinking directly. You judge based on what happened and work your way back through all the facts not what you think he was thinking. The ball practically hitting an eligible receiver is a fact that is hard to work back through to get to his intent to ground. It would have been pretty lucky if he had completed that pass having no idea that a receiver was there. In addition, I KNOW HE KNEW the receiver was there. They were running an Auggie pass concept on that play which is about the first pass concept any QB learns. Slant arrow mirror, he threw to the arrow, oh my gosh that’s impossible he didn’t even look at him. He has only thrown an arrow route under a slant what 2000 times in his life?

So you are saying that we have 1st hand knowledge from an official who was working the game who told Bob that "The NFL has a subtle interpretation that when considering the possibility of IG, the throw "must be a natural act of passing the ball."
The supervisor of officials Mr. Pereira, supported the IG on that part of the rule, BUT you are saying they are wrong!!!!!?????

How much more clear can it be that for "this particular play" IG was the correct call based on the NFL rules.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by MJT

So you are saying that we have 1st hand knowledge from an official who was working the game who told Bob that "The NFL has a subtle interpretation that when considering the possibility of IG, the throw "must be a natural act of passing the ball."
The supervisor of officials Mr. Pereira, supported the IG on that part of the rule, BUT you are saying they are wrong!!!!!?????

How much more clear can it be that for "this particular play" IG was the correct call based on the NFL rules.

Exactly. If the boss says it is right, then it is right. It don't matter what anyone else thinks. This reminds me of working a youth game a couple years ago where this one team ran the "center sneak" play. Of course this is an illegal snap when they ran it. During the halftime we were standing around and the mother of this kid couldn't believe it was illegal since they ran it last week. She was respectful enough that I didn't mind showing her the rule. After showing her the words in black and white, her exact response was, "that's not right." I though to myself, "how can it not be right when it's right there word for word." The same applies for this play in question. You can't argue if the boss says the Ref got it right.

[hawkishowl20]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

Exactly. If the boss says it is right, then it is right. It don't matter what anyone else thinks... ..."how can it not be right when it's right there word for word." The same applies for this play in question. You can't argue if the boss says the Ref got it right.

Saying that a small coda sol of the rulebook sort of applies here PUBLICALLY in a super PR conscience
League (that fines anyone who questions calls right or wrong) is hardly a debate stopper. What are you a peon? I didn’t see this interview for all I know he said the natural throwing motion criteria applies in this type of situation. You being someone that hears what they want to, thinks “he said that wasn’t a natural throwing motion and that’s what made it grounding.” The ball travels another yard½ on the exact same trajectory and is caught… ughhh, unnatural throwing motion safety! Your right the debate is over UC underhand pass safety. What is a natural throwing motion? It is probably everything not immediately effected by a defender otherwise why wouldn‘t it be natural?

[hawkishowl20]

Is this what your talking about?
ProFootballTalk.com - PEREIRA ADDRESSES “ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS” CALL

Someone making things up is black and white?

He is saying if something is not intentional grounding and you think it is “cheap” or a “dump” you can magically disregard the rules and make it IG. Why have a rule then?

[hawkishowl20]

As to the idea that Rodgers was “clearly trying to avoid giving up points or loss of yardage to the Vikings” - Really? Geez! What a concept! That’s only the intent every play. As to whether or not he did something against the rules… he didn’t. Having the emotional response “that’s cheap” isn’t and shouldn’t be part of rules. You run into situations like this where they didn’t violate the rules whatsoever but they were close and “they meant to” so I’ll flag it.

This is so crazy, you are saying he cheated by not violating the rule that most people would violate in that situation. I expect some fans to say that’s cheap, but officials penalizing for "avoiding a violation" is a new one. Wouldn't you have to flag every play were no penalty was called. He followed the rules when it was difficult to do so. Lets make up something to keep it “fair.” What are you kindergarten teachers?

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by hawkishowl20

Is this what your talking about?
ProFootballTalk.com - PEREIRA ADDRESSES “ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS” CALL

Someone making things up is black and white?

He is saying if something is not intentional grounding and you think it is “cheap” or a “dump” you can magically disregard the rules and make it IG. Why have a rule then?

Obviously you are not an official. If you were, you'd realize that there rules and then there are intent of the rules. Because you can't possibly put every game situation into the rule book the officials have to understand the intent and the interpretation that their boss gives them. If the boss says to judge a players intent to look at the "throwing motion" then that is the way it is. If you'd look again at the video the QB wasn't looking at the receiver, it was 100% he was trying to avoid the safety. As Periera was quoted, that ball better land at the receivers feet, not 3 yards away as it did in this play.

1. Was he trying to avoid a safety by throwing the ball away. If yes, foul.
When you decide to "dump" the ball, then the rules allow you to do so as long as you are outside the tackle and throw the ball so that it lands beyond the NZ.

2. Was he legitimately trying to complete the pass. If yes, no foul.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by hawkishowl20

Is this what your talking about?
ProFootballTalk.com - PEREIRA ADDRESSES “ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS” CALL

Someone making things up is black and white?

He is saying if something is not intentional grounding and you think it is “cheap” or a “dump” you can magically disregard the rules and make it IG. Why have a rule then?

Originally Posted by PEREIRA ADDRESSES “ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS” CALL

After the game, Riveron re-characterized the call as intentional grounding,

Originally Posted by Mike Pereira

"It wasn’t a natural throwing motion and it’s not one that we haven’t seen before and, to me, it’s intentional grounding.”

Bottom line: IFP is NOT the correct terminology. MP even quoted it is IG. MP also quoted unnatural throwing motion, and the only person that mention this term was Bob M.

So both AR and MP say it is IG and not IFP.

[hawkishowl20]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

Obviously you are not an official.

Obviously you are not an official. I can point out how wrong this call is. You can wrongly defend it.
No, if a supervisor tells me to call a penalty on someone for intentionally NOT violating any rules I don’t have to listen to him. If Pereira tells me to jump off a bridge I’m not doing it. Both things are CRAZY.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by hawkishowl20

Is this what your talking about?
ProFootballTalk.com - PEREIRA ADDRESSES “ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS” CALL

Someone making things up is black and white?

He is saying if something is not intentional grounding and you think it is “cheap” or a “dump” you can magically disregard the rules and make it IG. Why have a rule then?

I agree with JasonTX: not an official. An official would realize there are interpretations, case plays, etc., beyond what is in the rulebook. If that is the interpretation, then the officials did not "magically disregard" anything.

Originally Posted by hawkishowl20

Obviously you are not an official. I can point out how wrong this call is. You can wrongly defend it.
No, if a supervisor tells me to call a penalty on someone for intentionally NOT violating any rules I don’t have to listen to him. If Pereira tells me to jump off a bridge I’m not doing it. Both things are CRAZY.

You don't have to listen to him. You also don't have to work for him.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by hawkishowl20

Obviously you are not an official. I can point out how wrong this call is. You can wrongly defend it.
No, if a supervisor tells me to call a penalty on someone for intentionally NOT violating any rules I don’t have to listen to him. If Pereira tells me to jump off a bridge I’m not doing it. Both things are CRAZY.

How can you say it's wrong, when the top official who is resposible for making sure that the officials are properly officiating the plays says it was an illegal play? Suppose all the owners / coaches on the rules committee made a statement saying it was ruled correctly. Would you still say they were wrong? It's their rules and they have every right to say if it was right or wrong. It makes no difference how we think the rule is. I give up on this post. It's been fun and I hope you didn't take anything personally. It made my day go by pretty fast.