Illegal forward pass?

[packers11]

pft.com


LAST WORD (FOR NOW) ON THE “ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS” CALL
Posted by Mike Florio on November 10, 2008, 8:53 a.m.
Given the number of comments and e-mails generated by our item from last night regarding referee Alberto Riveron’s curious decision to flag Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers for an “illegal forward pass” that resulted in a safety, we need to clarify a couple of things.

Our theory on this is that Riveron initially wanted to rule that Rodgers had committed intentional grounding, but that Riveron’s crew persuaded him that the Favre-style desperation underhand throw wasn’t intentional grounding, most likely because a receiver was in the general vicinity of the ball. (The official rules also permit a quarterback who’s outside the pocket to throw the ball to an area away from any receiver, as long as the ball lands “near or beyond” the line of scrimmage. And contrary to what folks might be finding elsewhere via Google, the official rules use the term “near or beyond” when describing what a quarterback who’s outside the pocket must do to avoid intentional grounding.)

And so, because Riveron likely was troubled by the notion that a quarterback could make an ungainly, stumbling heave in order to avoid a safety, we believe that Riveron decided to find a way to award the safety by calling the thing an illegal forward pass.

But it simply wasn’t an “illegal forward pass.” It was a legal and appropriate pass. If it had been caught, no flag would have been thrown.

The question is whether it was intentional grounding; since Riveron didn’t call it intentional grounding, we can only assume that he and his crew decided that it wasn’t. And since in 35-plus years of watching pro and college football games we’ve never heard “intentional grounding” described as an “illegal forward pass,” we’re convinced that Riveron was bending the rules on the fly to fit the outcome that he believed was appropriate.

In our view, Riveron focused more on the ugly initiation of the pass than on where it landed. Watch the video. The ball lands in the vicinity of a Packers receiver, and it was potentially catchable.

It was far more catchable (or, more accurately, far less uncatchable) than the ball that Giants quarterback Eli Manning spiked to the ground a yard or so from the feet of tight end Kevin Boss last night. That maneuver didn’t draw a flag, and the absence of a penalty for intentional grounding prompted loud boos from the Philly faithful. (Amazingly, the usually rock-solid duo of Al Michaels and John Madden said nothing about the non-call, or the crowd’s reaction to it.)

Bottom line? As one commenter has pointed out, Riveron tried to base the call on Rodgers’ intent. In so doing, Riveron ignored the rules. For a first-year referee who surely hopes to stick around much longer than that, this was worse that simply blowing a call. Riveron placed his own beliefs above the plain terms of the rule book.

And while the NFL will rally around Riveron’s post-game attempt to equate an illegal forward pass with intentional grounding in order to avoid drawing further attention to the mistakes that officials have made this season, we hope that the powers-that-be explain to Riveron in no uncertain terms that a big part of exercising judgment is realizing when not to do so.

[Tony Oday]

that sucks...

[packers11]

by the refs ruling . Favre should have been flagged during the playoff game (Seattle) when he flicked it to Donald Lee...

[Ballboy]

I don't like to complain about call during a game, you win some and you lose some. Sure, the no-call on the first series of Offenssive-Pass-Interf on Rice against Williams which on the next play resulted in a TD(thats a 4 point swing) and then the questionable Illegal Contact on Al Harris when we stopped them on third down. Then the Illegal Forward Pass.

I have two Issues:

1) Why didn't MM push it more? I've seen some game where the coach actually used a challenge to prove that there was a receiver in the area or that the ball got "near" the line.......he seemed to give in and let it go.

2) If the league is going to fine players, coaches and whomever for calling out bad calls, then they sure the heck better start fining the refs themselves for blown calls. I understand that people make mistakes, but to huddle-up with other refs and arrive at the same conclusion is just silly. The league at least needs to apologize to the teams for the mistakes and clarify the ruling.

[MadtownPacker]

The way the game went yesterday we should all be grateful it wasnt a defensive TD.

I think the slapping motion was what got it called but the intent to the TE was there and Rodgers was looking up at his target. Bad call but he shouldnt have fumbled the damn thing to begin with.

[3irty1]

I thought for sure when I checked the forum after the game that every thread would have this title. What a terrible call that was.

[Patler]

Again I Tivoed the game, and I have watched this play several times. Rodgers as he is going down actually turned his head and appeared to look right at Tory Humphrey. His momentum sort of spun him around, so he ended up looking at the dirt as he threw, and he was probably trying to get rid of it as much as anything, but I feel quite sure that he knew Humphrey was there as he tried to get the ball into that general area, but it came up quite a few yards short.

The ball skittered right to where Humphrey was, and I thought after conferring, the officials might decide there was no penalty because of that. It was such an awkward play their judgment was clouded.

[Freak Out]

The Refs are fucking idiots...why huddle at all if you are going to make a stupid call that goes against all the rules? Take your time and get it right. That call gave one team points and the ball and it was wrong. Fucking idiots.

[bobblehead]

that article proves what I said at the time. the ref wanted to call intentional grounding but was wrong so he made a call with the same result.....but it was even more blatantly wrong. throwing underhand forward is legal...PERIOD!! He should be fired as should the entire crew for conferring and still blowing it. That one play likely cost us a win....that and the phantom hold on college.

[channtheman]

that article proves what I said at the time. the ref wanted to call intentional grounding but was wrong so he made a call with the same result.....but it was even more blatantly wrong. throwing underhand forward is legal...PERIOD!! He should be fired as should the entire crew for conferring and still blowing it. That one play likely cost us a win....that and the phantom hold on college.

Yup that play literally lost us the game. I think it's safe to say that we don't get a first down there so we punt. The only difference being is that Minnesota doesn't have 2 more points. So final score 27 - 26 we win.

[PackerTimer]

I'm usually not one to blame refs for a loss. But there were a lot of really questionable calls in that game. Most of the going against the Pack.

[red]

yeah bad call, and something that really could have changed he face of the game

that 2 points was the difference between a win and loss

we would have punted, and they would have had the ball in almost the same spot as they had after the free kick. probably a little better. just without those damn 2 points

[Merlin]

I was at the game and my buddy who is a Viking fan said that Rodgers fumbled the ball and only Rodgers can then advance that fumble once recovered. He cannot throw the ball, he has to run with it as no one else can advance his fumble. The flip side is that the fumble occurred behind the line of scrimmage so it would make that scenario invalid as a fumble behind the line of scrimmage may be advanced by any player on the recovering team. The only case I could see where it should have been a safety would be the old "in the grasp", premature whistle. I can assure you that there was no whistle, it was a heads up play by Rodgers and it was by rule an incomplete pass. The refs were not good at all, there were many times the Vikings OL had our DL held up by their face masks with the ref looking right at them, no flags...

[Ballboy]

I was at the game and my buddy who is a Viking fan said that Rodgers fumbled the ball and only Rodgers can then advance that fumble once recovered. He cannot throw the ball, he has to run with it as no one else can advance his fumble. The flip side is that the fumble occurred behind the line of scrimmage so it would make that scenario invalid as a fumble behind the line of scrimmage may be advanced by any player on the recovering team. The only case I could see where it should have been a safety would be the old "in the grasp", premature whistle. I can assure you that there was no whistle, it was a heads up play by Rodgers and it was by rule an incomplete pass. The refs were not good at all, there were many times the Vikings OL had our DL held up by their face masks with the ref looking right at them, no flags...

nope..that rule only applies to a forward fumble, not the same in this case.

[Merlin]

Actually the "forward fumble" rules in the NFL only come into play on 4th down, in the end zone, and after the 2 minute warning for a half. In all three of those scenarios, the fumbler must recover their own fumble for the ball to advance. Otherwise any offensive player can advance a fumble no matter where it occurs or where they recovered the ball from. College is a little different and has some whacked out "in the air" rule I don't fully understand for advancement of the ball by the offense I think. I had thought the fumble had to occur behind the line of scrimmage for the offense to advance it but I was mistaken.

[Patler]

I was at the game and my buddy who is a Viking fan said that Rodgers fumbled the ball and only Rodgers can then advance that fumble once recovered. He cannot throw the ball, he has to run with it as no one else can advance his fumble.

Rodgers did recover his own fumble. Once that happened, I do not believe there are any restrictions on what he can do with it, pass, lateral, run regardless of down, location time, etc.. I believe the restriction only prohibits a team mate from recovering the fumble AND advancing it. He can recover, but not advance. He can subsequently advance the ball, so long as the fumbling player recovered the ball. For example, if the fumbler picks up the ball, runs 10 yards with it, he can then lateral to another player who continues to run.

(Maybe this is what you said in your immediately preceding post??)

[Guiness]

Actually the "forward fumble" rules in the NFL only come into play on 4th down, in the end zone, and after the 2 minute warning for a half. In all three of those scenarios, the fumbler must recover their own fumble for the ball to advance. Otherwise any offensive player can advance a fumble no matter where it occurs or where they recovered the ball from. College is a little different and has some whacked out "in the air" rule I don't fully understand for advancement of the ball by the offense I think. I had thought the fumble had to occur behind the line of scrimmage for the offense to advance it but I was mistaken.


On 4th down, in the end zone, after the 2 minute warning? WTF is that???

Sounds like a 'Raider Rule' to me.

I think like 80% of the NFL rulebook are there because that franchise devised a way to bend the rules and forced the league to put some bullshit rule on the books!

[Patler]

On 4th down, in the end zone, after the 2 minute warning? WTF is that???

Sounds like a 'Raider Rule' to me.

I think like 80% of the NFL rulebook are there because that franchise devised a way to bend the rules and forced the league to put some bullshit rule on the books!

It is the "Raider Rule". That is what it originated from, to prevent intentional forward fumbles in desperation situations.

[Guiness]

On 4th down, in the end zone, after the 2 minute warning? WTF is that???

Sounds like a 'Raider Rule' to me.

I think like 80% of the NFL rulebook are there because that franchise devised a way to bend the rules and forced the league to put some bullshit rule on the books!

It is the "Raider Rule". That is what it originated from, to prevent intentional forward fumbles in desperation situations.

I thought the that rule had more to do with the ball going out of bounds?

The 'legend' I heard was that the Raiders devised a play whereby a player would roll out, and pitch the ball 10yds upfield, out of bounds. A fumbled out of bounds goes to the team that had possession, at the spot it went out of bounds...not a bad deal.

[Noodle]

I remember the play, called back then the Holly Roller -- Stabler was about to get sacked with no time left and fumbled the ball forward, Banaszak recovered but also fumbled the ball forward at about the 10, the ball rolled to around the 5, Dave Casper kicked it in to the end zone then fell on it for a game winning TD.

Classic school-yard stuff, back when the Raiders were much more than a bunch of demented fans and a flaky old owner.

[Guiness]

Please tell me there's a youtube of that!

Anyone here ever read 'The League: The Rise and Decline of the NFL'?
Talks about some of the battles between Rozelle and Davis - kind of akin to setting off a grenade in a crowded room!

[Patler]

I remember the play, called back then the Holly Roller -- Stabler was about to get sacked with no time left and fumbled the ball forward, Banaszak recovered but also fumbled the ball forward at about the 10, the ball rolled to around the 5, Dave Casper kicked it in to the end zone then fell on it for a game winning TD.

Classic school-yard stuff, back when the Raiders were much more than a bunch of demented fans and a flaky old owner.

That's the one. I couldn't remember what they had called it, but I remembered Casper being the featured performer.

They used to like the religious names for plays, "The Holy Roller" "The Immaculate Reception" etc.

[mraynrand]

They used to like the religious names for plays, "The Holy Roller" "The Immaculate Reception" etc.

God doesn't watch as much football as he used to. There are too many choices on cable these days.

[Patler]

They used to like the religious names for plays, "The Holy Roller" "The Immaculate Reception" etc.

God doesn't watch as much football as he used to. There are too many choices on cable these days.

He became less interested when games were regularly scheduled not just on His day, but on all those other days, too.

[cpk1994]

I don't like to complain about call during a game, you win some and you lose some. Sure, the no-call on the first series of Offenssive-Pass-Interf on Rice against Williams which on the next play resulted in a TD(thats a 4 point swing) and then the questionable Illegal Contact on Al Harris when we stopped them on third down. Then the Illegal Forward Pass.

I have two Issues:

1) Why didn't MM push it more? I've seen some game where the coach actually used a challenge to prove that there was a receiver in the area or that the ball got "near" the line.......he seemed to give in and let it go.

2) If the league is going to fine players, coaches and whomever for calling out bad calls, then they sure the heck better start fining the refs themselves for blown calls. I understand that people make mistakes, but to huddle-up with other refs and arrive at the same conclusion is just silly. The league at least needs to apologize to the teams for the mistakes and clarify the ruling.Penalties are not reviewable. Even if McCarthy found another basis to review, they can't use that to overturn a penalty. McCarthy's hands were tied. Also, they do apologize to teams, but you never hear about it becuase the NFL refuses to make those things public becuase they don't want to embarass the refs further.

[Ballboy]

I don't like to complain about call during a game, you win some and you lose some. Sure, the no-call on the first series of Offenssive-Pass-Interf on Rice against Williams which on the next play resulted in a TD(thats a 4 point swing) and then the questionable Illegal Contact on Al Harris when we stopped them on third down. Then the Illegal Forward Pass.

I have two Issues:

1) Why didn't MM push it more? I've seen some game where the coach actually used a challenge to prove that there was a receiver in the area or that the ball got "near" the line.......he seemed to give in and let it go.

2) If the league is going to fine players, coaches and whomever for calling out bad calls, then they sure the heck better start fining the refs themselves for blown calls. I understand that people make mistakes, but to huddle-up with other refs and arrive at the same conclusion is just silly. The league at least needs to apologize to the teams for the mistakes and clarify the ruling.Penalties are not reviewable. Even if McCarthy found another basis to review, they can't use that to overturn a penalty. McCarthy's hands were tied. Also, they do apologize to teams, but you never hear about it becuase the NFL refuses to make those things public becuase they don't want to embarass the refs further.

Penalties are reviewable.....QB going or not going over line of scrimmage(it was used just this past weekend to overturn an illegal forward pass) and if the pass gets back to line of scrimmage. Even having twelve men on the field is also used!!

Your right, they don't review holding, motion and other calls such as that.

[Merlin]

Actually the "forward fumble" rules in the NFL only come into play on 4th down, in the end zone, and after the 2 minute warning for a half. In all three of those scenarios, the fumbler must recover their own fumble for the ball to advance. Otherwise any offensive player can advance a fumble no matter where it occurs or where they recovered the ball from. College is a little different and has some whacked out "in the air" rule I don't fully understand for advancement of the ball by the offense I think. I had thought the fumble had to occur behind the line of scrimmage for the offense to advance it but I was mistaken.


On 4th down, in the end zone, after the 2 minute warning? WTF is that???

Sounds like a 'Raider Rule' to me.

I think like 80% of the NFL rulebook are there because that franchise devised a way to bend the rules and forced the league to put some bullshit rule on the books!

That's exactly why the rule was put in place, at least most sites that quote it say the "Raider Rule". Personally I don't give a crap, Rodgers threw the ball away legally, the refs blew it, period. Why there is no mention of this by the NFL by today (Tuesday) is reprehensible.

[bobblehead]

The NFL answered this play today saying it was the right call. In the explanation they said that AR had "no idea" if the reciever was there or not.

Nice, now they are reading his mind...never mind that the reciever in fact was there, AR didn't know he was there so its intentional grounding. If we are going to start reading minds to make calls I might have to treat the NFL the same way I treat the NBA...I stopped watching years ago.

[ThunderDan]

The NFL answered this play today saying it was the right call. In the explanation they said that AR had "no idea" if the reciever was there or not.

Nice, now they are reading his mind...never mind that the reciever in fact was there, AR didn't know he was there so its intentional grounding. If we are going to start reading minds to make calls I might have to treat the NFL the same way I treat the NBA...I stopped watching years ago.

Using the same logic; what if Rodgers completed that ball to the TE but had "no idea" he was there? Is it still a safety? What a joke!

[ThunderDan]

The NFL answered this play today saying it was the right call. In the explanation they said that AR had "no idea" if the reciever was there or not.

Nice, now they are reading his mind...never mind that the reciever in fact was there, AR didn't know he was there so its intentional grounding. If we are going to start reading minds to make calls I might have to treat the NFL the same way I treat the NBA...I stopped watching years ago.

Shouldn't a QB know where all of his receivers should be on any given play?

[PackerTimer]

That is unquestionably one of the lamest explanations I have ever seen. The NFL has really fucked this one up. I hope MM and AR both come out and say something despite the fines they'll receive.

[Ballboy]

NFL has said several times that they don't referee "intent" but rather what really happens. The excuse makes no sense.

If you noticed as well, the helmet being taken off by Peterson is finally getting some pub.

[channtheman]

Does someone have a link to the NFL's response to that call? I'd like to check that out and show it to my dad sometime.

[Patler]

If that is the NFL explanation, it was obviously put out there for the majority of fans who have not seen the play, or who have seen it only briefly. As several of us have noted, it you watch it in slow motion (and I have several times) one of the replay angles clearly shows Rodgers turning his head and apparently looking directly at Humphrey before he flips the ball. I have no doubt that he knew Humphrey was there before he threw. I also have no doubt that Rodgers's intent was to simply get the ball in that general direction to avoid the safety, but there is nothing wrong with that.

I have long suspected that what the NFL tells the public about specific calls is not the same as what the involved officials are told about the same calls. I have a feeling the officials have been criticized in private about this one. In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

[Ballboy]

Does someone have a link to the NFL's response to that call? I'd like to check that out and show it to my dad sometime.

Here it is:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/34289804.html

[sharpe1027]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

[bobblehead]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

that is the impression I got and that leads me to think a rookie official was biased. I wonder if he is the same guy who called college for holding on that classic engage and cut on fat williams.

[Gunakor]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

I agree with your post 100%. And they won't learn anything from it if the NFL continues to defend the call, so I wouldn't expect any significant change in the accuracy of calls anytime soon.

[Patler]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

Did you read the rest of my post? I said that I suspect the comments given to the officials about the play might be much different than the line fed to the public. Everything the officials do is analyzed for retention, release, promotion. That's a given.

But on Tuesday or Wednesday, how does it matter what the league says about a play that happened on Sunday? While it may have had a profound effect on the game, after the game is done it does not matter what the league tells the public. They will not reverse, alter or replay the outcome. It will change nothing, so at that point the only thing that matters is that the officials learn from it and get better, so that these things are avoided in the future.

[Patler]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

I agree with your post 100%. And they won't learn anything from it if the NFL continues to defend the call, so I wouldn't expect any significant change in the accuracy of calls anytime soon.

I would agree if I felt they defended the officials as much in private as they do in public. I doubt that is the case. I am only guessing, but I think Riveron probably received low grades for his performance on Sunday. They most likely defended him in public, while privately criticizing him for explaining the call so poorly, especially after taking the time to confer about it.

[Gunakor]

In the end, all that matters is that the officials learn from it.

I disagree. It is very likely (no, I can't be sure) that the penalty cost them the game. Also, if this is in anyway indicative of that official's quality of work this year, he should be gone sooner rather than later. The NFL is the top of the hill. Yet, every official at any level should know that they aren't supposed to make-up rules to come to the outcome they want.

What this ref did is very different from missing a call, or even from misunderstanding the rules. Everything I've seen makes me believe that he wanted to penalize the Packers because he thought they deserved it. IMHO, it is a very bad sign that this ref is willing to reach the result he feels is proper, rules be damned.

I agree with your post 100%. And they won't learn anything from it if the NFL continues to defend the call, so I wouldn't expect any significant change in the accuracy of calls anytime soon.

I would agree if I felt they defended the officials as much in private as they do in public. I doubt that is the case. I am only guessing, but I think Riveron probably received low grades for his performance on Sunday. They most likely defended him in public, while privately criticizing him for explaining the call so poorly, especially after taking the time to confer about it.

I'm sure even in private they are telling him that while the penalty he called was wrong, it was correct to throw a flag there. THAT is the issue I have a problem with, as nothing illegal happened on that play. It met the criteria of a legal forward pass, and landed in the vicinity of a receiver (meaning it did not meet the criteria of intentional grounding). There should have been no flag for any penalty whatsover, and that won't be explained even in private.

[Badgerinmaine]

I remember the play, called back then the Holly Roller --

I've also heard it called the Fumblerooski Play.

[Patler]

I'm sure even in private they are telling him that while the penalty he called was wrong, it was correct to throw a flag there. THAT is the issue I have a problem with, as nothing illegal happened on that play. It met the criteria of a legal forward pass, and landed in the vicinity of a receiver (meaning it did not meet the criteria of intentional grounding). There should have been no flag for any penalty whatsover, and that won't be explained even in private.

That is where we disagree. I have a feeling, based on nothing substantive really, that in private they were told that while a call of intentional grounding can be defended, the better action would have been to call nothing.

I would have disagreed with a call of intentional grounding, but I have a very difficult time saying that making that call would be 100% wrong. I have watched the play over and over again. The ball was on the 10 yard line when snapped. It looks like the ball landed short of the 9, maybe closer to the 8, maybe the 9. Humphrey was at the 11, but much farther away from the ball because of the angle of the throw. He was much nearer to the sidelines than where the ball hit, and the angle of the throw from when Rodgers threw it was not well-directed toward Humphrey. Humphrey came toward it, and the ball bounced toward him, but from one long wide angle view in the replay, Humphrey isn't even in the frame when the ball hits.

So while in my biased Packer mind I do not think it was intentional grounding, I really can't argue that a call of intentional grounding would be completely wrong.

[sharpe1027]

Did you read the rest of my post? I said that I suspect the comments given to the officials about the play might be much different than the line fed to the public. Everything the officials do is analyzed for retention, release, promotion. That's a given.

But on Tuesday or Wednesday, how does it matter what the league says about a play that happened on Sunday? While it may have had a profound effect on the game, after the game is done it does not matter what the league tells the public. They will not reverse, alter or replay the outcome. It will change nothing, so at that point the only thing that matters is that the officials learn from it and get better, so that these things are avoided in the future.

I re-read your post. I'll now ask you to read it. While one part of your post did talk about the differences between public statements and internal statements, I still don't read your last statement as only applying to the leagues statements to the public; regardless, I don't agree with you. It matters that there is some transparency. It matters that people have faith that this is not another NBA-type scandal waiting to happen. It matters that the perception is that the NFL thinks referees need some sort of protection. It matters because the appearance of a cover up keeps us talking longer than if they had just admitted to a mistake. It matters how teams game plan around things like WRs intentionally running over DBs just to get a call. It does matter.

[sharpe1027]

That is where we disagree. I have a feeling, based on nothing substantive really, that in private they were told that while a call of intentional grounding can be defended, the better action would have been to call nothing.

I would have disagreed with a call of intentional grounding, but I have a very difficult time saying that making that call would be 100% wrong. I have watched the play over and over again. The ball was on the 10 yard line when snapped. It looks like the ball landed short of the 9, maybe closer to the 8, maybe the 9. Humphrey was at the 11, but much farther away from the ball because of the angle of the throw. He was much nearer to the sidelines than where the ball hit, and the angle of the throw from when Rodgers threw it was not well-directed toward Humphrey. Humphrey came toward it, and the ball bounced toward him, but from one long wide angle view in the replay, Humphrey isn't even in the frame when the ball hits.

So while in my biased Packer mind I do not think it was intentional grounding, I really can't argue that a call of intentional grounding would be completely wrong.

Agreed, if they had called intentional grounding, I would probably have defended the call. I thought it was watching live action. After the replay, it looked closer than I originally thought, but I would have personally still called it grounding.

[Patler]

I'll divide your post and comment separately on the two parts:



While one part of your post did talk about the differences between public statements and internal statements, I still don't read your last statement as only applying to the leagues statements to the public;

Not a big deal, but I have to defend my self a little here. It wasn't one part of my post and another part of my post. Both were contained in a single paragraph of three sentences, the first outlining my perception of the differences between public and private statements, the second summarizing what I think the officials were told privately this time, and the third stating what matters is that the officials learn from it. The correlation should be clear, at least it is to me! :lol:

Now for the more important part of your post:



regardless, I don't agree with you. It matters that there is some transparency. It matters that people have faith that this is not another NBA-type scandal waiting to happen. It matters that the perception is that the NFL thinks referees need some sort of protection. It matters because the appearance of a cover up keeps us talking longer than if they had just admitted to a mistake. It matters how teams game plan around things like WRs intentionally running over DBs just to get a call. It does matter.

I don't disagree with much of this, but I think we need to differentiate to some extent between what the public knows and is told and what the players, coaches and teams in general know and are told. The teams get reports from the league about plays in question, which I suspect are more detailed than what is released to the public about any of those same plays.

This wasn't a blatant error in result, it was an error in explanation at the time by the official, and the league acknowledged that error. I would even go as far as saying that a call of intentional grounding could be an error, but not a blatant one. I don't think that every mistake made by an official needs to hashed out in public, and to its credit the NFL has publicly acknowledged and discussed when significant, blatant errors have been made on occasion. It just seems to me that this was not one of those, that it was best handled internally as an educational opportunity for the officials involved, not a public hanging.

[sharpe1027]

I don't disagree with much of this, but I think we need to differentiate to some extent between what the public knows and is told and what the players, coaches and teams in general know and are told. The teams get reports from the league about plays in question, which I suspect are more detailed than what is released to the public about any of those same plays.

This wasn't a blatant error in result, it was an error in explanation at the time by the official, and the league acknowledged that error. I would even go as far as saying that a call of intentional grounding could be an error, but not a blatant one. I don't think that every mistake made by an official needs to hashed out in public, and to its credit the NFL has publicly acknowledged and discussed when significant, blatant errors have been made on occasion. It just seems to me that this was not one of those, that it was best handled internally as an educational opportunity for the officials involved, not a public hanging.

I have to disagree that it was just an error in description. What appeared to happen is this:

At least on official disagreed with the head-official regarding whether there was a receiver in the vicinity of the throw. Rather than over-rule this official, the head official made up a ruling to come to a predetermined conclusion that he had in his head.

I can find no defense for this. I also disagree that an proper explanation of a call of this magnitude would be hashing out every detail or a public hanging.

[Brando19]

This is stupid. What if Favre had been penalized during his TD celebration in the Super Bowl win when he ran around the field celebrating holding his helmet?

[Patler]

I have to disagree that it was just an error in description. What appeared to happen is this:

At least on official disagreed with the head-official regarding whether there was a receiver in the vicinity of the throw. Rather than over-rule this official, the head official made up a ruling to come to a predetermined conclusion that he had in his head.

I can find no defense for this. I also disagree that an proper explanation of a call of this magnitude would be hashing out every detail or a public hanging.

It sure would be interesting to know what the officials discussed on the field before the call was made. Just as interesting as knowing what the officials have been told about it privately. But all we can do is speculate on both.

[CaptainKickass]

I need clarification -

The events as I understand them:

1 Ball was snapped to the qb
2 ball is fumbled
3 ball is recovered by qb
4 qb scrambles outside of the pocket
5 qb makes unusual toss to TE "area"
6 said toss lands shy of the original line of scrimmage

So - if the ball was fumbled, doesn't that negate the possibility of both an illegal fwd pass as well as intentional grounding regardless of which player recovered the fumble?

For example - lets say in the same scenario - the rb recovers the fumbled snap and attempts the same lame throw from the same spot - is that still an illegal fwd pass or intentional grounding?

?

[Pugger]

I didn't see the game so I have questions about this particular play. Was AR outside the tackles when he flipped the ball? If he wasn't then it should've been intentional grounding. If he was outside the tackles then it isn't intentional grounding. But they called it an illegal forward pass? :?: I don't think a forward pass is illegal if it doesn't reach the line of scrimmage. How many times is a screen pass thrown behind the line of scrimmage? If a QB is outside the pocket, can't he throw it where ever he pleases? What if AR had thrown the ball out of bounds on that play? Haven't we seen a QB throw the ball away to avoid a sack? What if Humphrey had somehow caught it? So the crux of the matter is was he outside of the tackles when he tossed it towards the line of scrimmage? :crazy:

[Gunakor]

I didn't see the game so I have questions about this particular play. Was AR outside the tackles when he flipped the ball? If he wasn't then it should've been intentional grounding. If he was outside the tackles then it isn't intentional grounding. But they called it an illegal forward pass? :?: I don't think a forward pass is illegal if it doesn't reach the line of scrimmage. How many times is a screen pass thrown behind the line of scrimmage? If a QB is outside the pocket, can't he throw it where ever he pleases? What if AR had thrown the ball out of bounds on that play? Haven't we seen a QB throw the ball away to avoid a sack? What if Humphrey had somehow caught it? So the crux of the matter is was he outside of the tackles when he tossed it towards the line of scrimmage? :crazy:

Yes, he was outside the tackle box. But the ball did not make it all the way to the LOS, so I suppose it's debatable whether or not that alone makes it intentional grounding. The rule literally says the ball must be near or beyond the LOS to not be grounding. It was near the LOS, but since there is no literal definition of what constitutes near the LOS, it's up to the referee's interpretation of the play. It's another one of those vague rules in the rulebook (although this one could be easily amended by putting a literal definition of "near" in the rulebook as applies to this scenario).

They deemed it an illegal forward pass due to an unnatural throwing motion. This is what irks me the most, because it was almost the same pass that Favre threw to Donald Lee in the snow game against Seattle. My interpretation of that judgement is that since Favre completed the pass, no flag was thrown. That's the only real difference between the two IMO.

The ball Rodgers threw IMO landed in the vicinity of the TE, but that too is left up to interpretation as far as what "in the vicinity" means exactly. If the referee feels that the reciever was in the vicinity, however that is judged exactly, then intentional grounding won't be called. In this case, intentional grounding wasn't called, so I have to assume that after conferring they came to the conclusion that the TE was in fact in the vicinity of the pass. After deciding that part of the throw was legal, they tried to officiate intent - which is where they screwed the pooch big time. It's not their job to officiate intent, only what is black and white in the rule book. So in effect, it doesn't matter whether or not Rodgers was outside the tackle box or how natural a throwing motion he made. If the reciever is in the vicinity, and after a short conference the officials agree that was the case, then it should be deemed a legal pass.

Nothing about a natural throwing motion is mentioned in the NFL rule book as far as I'm aware of. Nothing about intent is mentioned there either I don't think. Just black and white, where the ball was thrown and who was in the vicinity of it where it landed. Nothing about how or why. The how and why shouldn't be considered IMO as long as the where part is deemed legal.

[CaptainKickass]

I need clarification -

The events as I understand them:

1 Ball was snapped to the qb
2 ball is fumbled
3 ball is recovered by qb
4 qb scrambles outside of the pocket
5 qb makes unusual toss to TE "area"
6 said toss lands shy of the original line of scrimmage

So - if the ball was fumbled, doesn't that negate the possibility of both an illegal fwd pass as well as intentional grounding regardless of which player recovered the fumble?

For example - lets say in the same scenario - the rb recovers the fumbled snap and attempts the same lame throw from the same spot - is that still an illegal fwd pass or intentional grounding?

?


Yo - Rats who are more football smart than me - lemme rephrase the question:

If the snap is fumbled and then recovered by the offense, doesn't that negate any penalty for either intentional grounding or illegal forward pass?

And while I'm thinking about it - how come spiking the ball to stop the clock isn't "intentional grounding"?

I should probably know this but I am an idiot. Please learn me good.

[Rastak]

Intentional grounding is throwing the ball away to avoid a sack. Spiking isn't avoiding a sack.

[KYPack]

As long as the ball wasn't fumbled past the LOS, the play continues as normal. The QB (or whoever) can still throw a pass to any eligible receiver. The QB would still be penalized if he intentionallly grounded a pass to avoid being sacked.

[red]

Intentional grounding is throwing the ball away to avoid a sack. Spiking isn't avoiding a sack.

see thats one of those gray areas. i think the spike should also be intentional grounding

and while we're on it

when the qb is under center and he stands up and starts calling an audible, the the line stands up and looks back at him, then the wr and rb move. why couldn't the d jump and claim that they were drawn offsides?

thats one thats always bugged me

[bobblehead]

Intentional grounding is throwing the ball away to avoid a sack. Spiking isn't avoiding a sack.

see thats one of those gray areas. i think the spike should also be intentional grounding

and while we're on it

when the qb is under center and he stands up and starts calling an audible, the the line stands up and looks back at him, then the wr and rb move. why couldn't the d jump and claim that they were drawn offsides?

thats one thats always bugged me

spike is a special rule to stop the clock. It was put in years ago, prior to that the QB would turn and fire a 20 foot high pass out of bounds as the reciever jumped up and couldn't reach it. Your showing your age here...and it explains your love for favre too.