Author Topic: CFO Video this week  (Read 519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 2300
  • FAN REACTION: +120/-101
  • The rules are there if you need them.
CFO Video this week
« on: November 12, 2021, 08:30:03 AM »
Considering Shaw, in the last CFO training video, made a major point about the "Illegal Forward Pass" versus "Intentional Grounding" when a pass is thrown to a player that is ineligible by position (and no other eligible A players in the area), this week I thought he might show the down from the Alabama-LSU game in which an A player (wearing an eligible number) was on the line, about halfway between the end and the "tackle," and then, at the snap dropped back some 5 yards. The passer threw a pass toward him from about 1 yard behind this 'receiver,' and the ball was some 1 1/2 yards beyond where it was thrown as it approached the 'receiver.' But, as a designed play - apparently intended to be a backward pass - the 'receiver' could tell that it was a forward pass and quite deliberately and animatedly pulled his arms back to avoid touching the ball, knowing that he was an ineligible player. The ball passed him and went OB, with no other teammate (eligible or ineligible) within 10 yards. After some discussion, the crew ruled Intentional Grounding, and penalized loss of down at the spot of the pass. However, it would seem from the August Bulletin 1, and from the previous training video, this should have been an illegal forward pass (adding a 5-yard distance penalty).
Anybody have any positive knowledge as to why this wasn't ruled as an Illegal Forward pass?

Offline ump_ben

  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
Re: CFO Video this week
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2021, 09:53:11 AM »
From your description, I'm confused as to why this was even intentional grounding.  It doesn't meet any of the written rules.  It remains legal to throw a forward pass where no eligible receiver has an opportunity to catch it if you weren't trying to do that, right?

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 2300
  • FAN REACTION: +120/-101
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: CFO Video this week
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2021, 10:30:13 AM »
From your description, I'm confused as to why this was even intentional grounding.  It doesn't meet any of the written rules.  It remains legal to throw a forward pass where no eligible receiver has an opportunity to catch it if you weren't trying to do that, right?

Actually in CFO video 8. Same team, by the way.

No, it would not be intentional grounding. And that is certainly part of the equation. I think, perhaps, my question is, really, "Does the ball have to be touched by the ineligible player to be considered an Illegal Forward Pass. In the bulletin and the video, the ball is touched by the ineligible player in question.  Also, the ineligible player in question was wearing an eligible number. I have a feeling they want to this to be an illegal forward pass, because Team A is potentially confusing the defense as to who are eligible. But, I don't truly know if the pass must be touched. Perhaps we are supposed to treat what looks like illegal touching to an Illegal Forward pass, because the player was wearing an eligible number, but was ineligible by position.
But, if he doesn't touch the pass, is it still an Illegal Forward Pass foul? As you allude, if the ball isn't touched, and it isn't to be considered an Illegal Forward Pass, then, in the absence of the passer being pressured, this would be no foul at all.
Shaw said that this will be "cleaned up' for 2022. Don't know what that means. We shall see.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1850
  • FAN REACTION: +179/-24
Re: CFO Video this week
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2021, 08:58:12 AM »
I think that ruling was incorrect when he called it an illegal forward pass a few years ago.  Makes no sense.  It fits the mold of intentional grounding better.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 2300
  • FAN REACTION: +120/-101
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: CFO Video this week
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2021, 01:52:12 PM »
I think that ruling was incorrect when he called it an illegal forward pass a few years ago.  Makes no sense.  It fits the mold of intentional grounding better.

It wasn't a few years ago. It was in bulletin 1 from this year, and in CFO video 8 from this year. The bulletin example has A77 being the recipient of the forward pass, and the video example had interior lineman A88 being the recipient of the forward pass. The instruction from Shaw was that this is to be considered an illegal forward pass, rather than illegal touching, to include a Loss of Down in the penalty.
Now, as to why he/they seem to have such a problem with this action, I can't say. Since it would be illegal touching, I don't know why it has to be a greater penalty. But, that is the instruction. So, what about the action in the more recent Alabama game? There, A88, again, was the INTENDED receiver, but he backed off and didn't touch the pass. The passer wasn't under duress, so the fact that the pass was thrown to an area with NO eligible A player should not have been considered ING. Is it still supposed to be considered an illegal forward pass, per the bulleting and the video? I don't know. We'll probably have to wait for Shaw to edit/change the rule(s) for 2022.
 

Offline Punter

  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-21
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: CFO Video this week
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2021, 06:49:09 AM »
We had a long discussion about this in a study group.  The play in the bulletin was specifically addressing the loss of down provision of the illegal forward pass rule.  The 5 yard penalty did not matter because this foul was on a try down.  If you look at the rules, intentional grounding is actually a subset of an illegal forward pass.  This is listed in 7-3-2 f, g and h.  There really is no part of the rule that says “intentional grounding.”  Shaw should clarify whether this illegal forward pass in the bulletin falls into one of these three that  we casually call intentional grounding.  Our interpretation was that it does fall into that subcategory so no 5 yard penalty is administered. Rather, the penalty is loss of down at the spot of the foul.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3485
  • FAN REACTION: +82/-114
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: CFO Video this week
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2021, 10:10:52 AM »
We had a long discussion about this in a study group.  The play in the bulletin was specifically addressing the loss of down provision of the illegal forward pass rule.  The 5 yard penalty did not matter because this foul was on a try down.  If you look at the rules, intentional grounding is actually a subset of an illegal forward pass.  This is listed in 7-3-2 f, g and h.  There really is no part of the rule that says “intentional grounding.”  Shaw should clarify whether this illegal forward pass in the bulletin falls into one of these three that  we casually call intentional grounding.  Our interpretation was that it does fall into that subcategory so no 5 yard penalty is administered. Rather, the penalty is loss of down at the spot of the foul.

I wouldn't use the wording " .... we casually call intentional grounding."  That Intentional Grounding wording comes directly out of the rule book interpretations section at FI-45 and other pages mostly in the context "Illegal Forward Pass - Intentional Grounding".
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline Punter

  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-21
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: CFO Video this week
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2021, 07:26:29 PM »
even "Illegal Forward Pass - Intentional Grounding" seems to indicate that ING is a subset of an Illegal Forward pass so you are making my point for me.