Illegal Forward Pass Ruling in MIN-GB Game
 

I do not understand why there was a penalty for illegal forward pass on this play. For those who did not see it, here is what happened:

QB drops back, has ball knocked away by defensive player. Ball rolls into endzone. QB picks up ball and flings it in the direction of a receiver. Pass is incomplete. Referee rules illegal forward pass which obviously results in a safety.

I thought the only possible call that could be made on that play was intentional grounding. I did not see why the pass was illegal. Anyone know?

Are you sure that the ruling wasn't that a legal forward pass has already been attempt prior to the pass that was ruled illegal?

Only one pass was thrown.

The play in question: YouTube - NFL week 10 2008 Green bay Packers Aaron Rodgers Safety Vs, Vikings

If there was already a legal forward pass, someone would have had to catch it for the play to continue, right?

I wondered the same thing. The receiver was definitely in the direction of the pass so I was surprised when I saw the flag. We he gave the signal and announced illegal forward pass and not intentional grounding, I assumed there was some aspect of the rule I did not know. As a Vikings fan I was happy about it though! Another strange Vikings game! They have found the strangest way to win games this year.

The foul had to be intentional grounding, mistakenly announced as illegal forward pass.

That was IG?

Wow....

Intentional grounding is an illegal forward pass.

The pass did not make it back to the LOS, so even if he's outside the tackle box, it's still IG.

Previous obvious call IMO.

No doubt IG---throwing a pass in an effort to avoid a loss of yardage. I dont have a problem with the call. The explaination yes....the call no.

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.

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

There must be some NFL rule that none us know. Maybe this will be on the NFL network show.

Here's what the NFL playbook says:

2-20-GB 10 (12:29) A.Rodgers to GB 2 for -8 yards (K.Williams). FUMBLES (K.Williams), and recovers at GB -2. A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to T.Humphrey.

PENALTY on GB-A.Rodgers, Intentional Grounding, 10 yards, enforced in End Zone, SAFETY.



Watching the video, the ball didn't make it to the LS (not sure if that matters), but I am fairly liberal on IG, and I do believe that a player was in the area, # 84 for GB.

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.

A QB does not need to know where WRs are.

In the Canadian NCAA games that I do, there is a QB that only 30 minutes from my location who every game throws blindly 2-3 times to an area where he knows his RB will be. They are both that good and on the same page! Surely if a 21-year old from Canada can do this, that a professional football player playing the NFL and from the USA can have this tool in his arsenal.

I don't know the NFL rule or philosophy on this, and yes the QB tried to get rid of the ball to avoid the safety. If the rule is that the ball has to get back to the LS, that's fine. But to say that it's IG because QBs can't make those passes doesn't know what athletes can do.

The ball has to be thrown to an area where an eligible receiver has a reasonable oppurtunity to catch the pass. In this play that receiver was't even close in my opinion to having an oppurtunity to catch the pass.

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.

How is intentional grounding the same as an illegal forward pass? They are enforced differently and have different signals.

IG is one of the types of IFP's. It has it's one signal, but is a type of IFP.

Intentional grounding is a type of illegal forward pass. Under Federation rules all illegal forward passes have the penalty. NCAA is slightly different as passes thrown to conserve yardage are peanlized different than passes thrown to conserve time or thrown from beyond the neutral zone and such. But still, they are all types of illegal forward passes.

Yes, but why did the referee say IFP this time. Isn't it standard protocol in the NFL to call it intentional grounding?

EDIT: The official for the game was Alberto Riveron. This is his first year as referee, so I probably haven't heard him before. I suppose he likes to call all IFPs like that, but he had several Fox analysts confused, including Troy Aikman and Michael Strahan.

so anytime somebody throws a pass to avoid a loss of yardage, that's intentional grounding? that's what you make it sound like. qb's "throw the ball away" all the time, which is perfectly legal as long as you are either outside the pocket or there is a receiver in the area. troy aikman said that both occurred. this was a crap call, and i'm going to watch for that show where they debate bad calls on nfl network. no doubt he will say it was a bad call.

you cannot officiate intent, you should know this. it looked like he was just trying to avoid a safety? that's exactly what he was doing. nothing wrong with this. if there is something wrong with this, then there is something wrong with every time a qb scrambles out of the pocket and whips it 20 yards downfield out of bounds, or throws it at a receivers feet to avoid a sack. if there is a receiver in the area OR the qb is out of the pocket and the ball goes past the line of scrimmage, it is legal. he clearly didn't get it to the line of scrimmage, but i believe there was somebody in the area. i base this on the fact that i have seen throws where there is a receiver damn near 10 yards away and they say "receiver in the area".

i agree that something just didn't look right, and that you shouldn't be allowed to do that, but the fact is that qb's throw passes that end up up to 10 yards away from a receiver all the time, and they don't call ****.

regardless, "illegal forward pass" was the wrong call. you cannot argue that was an illegal forward pass. therefor the ref was wrong.

yes, but according to that logic, the ref could say "illegal play" or something even more general, because technically IG is an IFP which is an illegal play. refs are very specific in the calls, they wouldn't give some generic call like that. i've heard refs explain things in detail many times, sometimes taking as many as 4 sentences for a call. also, it's 10 yards and loss of down for IG, but IFP has a different penalty (too lazy to look it up).

you are correct. see the above.

Oh come on, a ball of string could confuse those guys. :rolleyes:

Which part of my post didn't you understand?

Hum, your callname is PackersFTW, and you think it was all wrong. :eek::eek::confused::confused::D:D;);)

On one of the replays from behind the QB, you could see #84 and one could assume that the QB may have seen him. That's being liberal, because it seemed like his intent was to chuck that sucker out of there.

Don't feed the trolls.

PACKER fan, do you have any opinion about the ball not making it to the LOS?

I think this was an error, it happens all the time in the NFL. They are very liberal in allowing the ball to be thrown away. I think the Ref had his mind made up he was going to call a penalty. From what he told the coach it was an unnatural throwing motion, that is why he called the penalty. He later found out that probably wouldn't be a good reason, thus later changed it to being IG, something he could defend. Regardless, I think he had his mind made up and wasn't going to change it regardless of what his crew told him. JMO

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.

REPLY: Then why precisely do they call the foul INTENTional grounding if the official is not supposed to judge intent? :confused::confused::confused:

Fanboy...
 

We are actually required to do this from time to time.

They took "intent" out of the spearing rule a couple of years back, but we do have to officiate intent on intentional grounding or on a hit that we believe was with intent to injure or to punish the opponent.

and lose.

Intentional Forward Pass Interference 7-5-2c (table) An additional 15 yards

Intentional Grounding 7-5-1d (table)

Intentionally Contacting An Official 9-4-2

Agreed. Ray Charles could have made that call.

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

LOL! And THAT is not new! :p

I'm enjoying this. You should've heard the Packers fans in the bar I was in during the game. High theater, indeed.

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.

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.

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

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

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. :cool:

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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."

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. :D

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 ).

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

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"? :D

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

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.

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

[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.

Or Mike Carey.

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

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

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. :)

What does Corrente have to do with it?

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

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

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.

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.

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.


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


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.

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?


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.

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 .”

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!!?????:confused::confused:

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

;)
 

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. ;)

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.

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.

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

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. :)

Criteria of IG
1) Thrower be inside of pocket:
Not met
2) Ball land short of scrimmage line or not in vicinity of receiver:
Not met
3) Player Looked like he should have IG but didn’t:
ugghhh ugghhh ugghhh Sam Kinison ugghhh ugghhh ugghhh

Hawkishowl20,

This is the 2nd time I have been involved in a discussion in which you have been flat out disrespectful and arrogant to many of the posters. You are a fan, who acts just as irrational as some fans at sporting events. You do not listen to anything that many quality officials on this site say. You don't even listen when it comes from the horses mouth.

There are no "tags" for the first 63 posts on this topic and then you start in and add the tags "coach mentality, non-officials, official fanboys, pereira worshipers, pig headed." That is so disrespectful to those of us who work very hard to improve our rules knowledge and such on this site. All of your "ugghhh" words make you sound like a little kid and how they sometimes are so immature in an arguement. You should take over as the supervisor of officials in the NFL, cuz you act as if you know more than what he does.

For the second time in the past few months (and the second time ever) I will not again respond to any of your comments regarding this issue because you have lost all credibility of discussing this in a rationale way. I hope my other brethren in stripes will do the same. Maybe we will have a decent discussion in a future post, but I'm done with this one.

Well someone's revealed his true colors...

To be fair, "coach mentality" and "non-officials" were my adds. The others were obviously his in response.

Frankly, I thought they would be more subtle than that and nobody would notice. :)

But, yeah, the poster in question simply does not want to listen. Best to not feed the troll.

hawkishowl20 -- I would change your tone and approach if you want to stick around here. You've been here two months and after reviewing your posts the majority of them seem to be antagonistic and combative.

We get enough grief on the field or the court -- we come here to discuss the games that we all enjoy and to get better as officials.

So, keep it professional and stick around or keep going with the status quo and be ejected.

Not all of the others were his. I added one and it wasn't meant for the majority.

Brad, thanks for taking care of this! Nice edit on his post, too. :D

hello

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.

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.

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