Illegal Forward Pass Ruling in MIN-GB Game

[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.

[JugglingReferee]

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 is SOOO close to being outside the tackle box, can they really be that accurate with an unmarked area of the field? It seems to me that a flag happy official would flag something right on the border.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

He is SOOO close to being outside the tackle box, .

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

[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.

[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?