Illegal Forward Pass Ruling in MIN-GB Game

[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.

[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.

[football-1]

hello

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.

but one thing was interesting. pereira said clear to the devin hester play he first makes the catch/touch and then the foot goes out of bounds.
but what pereira "forgot" to mention - the call on the play during game 1 year ago was false. bears had fd on the 40y line instead fd on the 3y.

[hawkishowl20]

MJT,

So after I am done posting on this topic my post is edited (kind of a childish move.) Then you slander me. (I didn’t add any tags) It’s nice to see that corrected by those responsible and thanks to them. Apparently it is “irrational” to state facts in a most logical manor. Mocking the thought process that leads to a bad call may be “flat out disrespectful and arrogant” to you, but many find it to be “humorous.” Perhaps you could use humility in apologizing for the clear wrong you’ve done.

[Brad]

Hawk,

I edited your post. I thought that was clear along with the warning that I PMed you -- perhaps not.

I don't get involved with a lot of back and forth on the board, but when I see a problem I take care of it. This board's purpose is to provide sports officials and those interested in officiating a place to discuss things amicably. If you can do that you are welcome to stick around. If not, there are plenty of other places for you to post.

- Brad