Illegal forward pass?

[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!

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?

[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?

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.