Illegal Forward Pass Ruling in MIN-GB Game

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

No the referee gave the signal and said " illegal forward pass"

Which part of my post didn't you understand?

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Which part of my post didn't you understand?

But he didn't say IG.. its IFP. that's was my questions... maybe he messed up ( which I highly doubt).. but it could of happen.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

But he didn't say IG.. its IFP. that's was my questions... maybe he messed up ( which I highly doubt).. but it could of happen.

IG is an IFP. How hard is that to understand?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

IG is an IFP. How hard is that to understand?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 BktBallRef

IG is an IFP. How hard is that to understand?

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