Intentional Grounding and the End Zone

[ref6983]

Wouldn't awarding 2 points incorrectly (your conclusion) be egregious?

Would only fall into the egregious category if the goal line was not in question. For example, the ball is thrown from the 4 yd line and the official mistakenly thought it was in the end zone.

To specifically answer your question, no, if the spot of the pass was the 1/4 yd line and the officials ruled it was in the end zone, that would not be egregious.

[RedTD]

Need some help. I seem to recall a CFO preseason (2012) training tape in which RR stated that the official was to use the location of the ball in relation to the GL to determine Safety. He used a 2011 game film as the scenario where the QB's feet were in the field of play but the ball was in the EZ when it was released. I cannot find it - was it in my dreams/nightmares?

[TXMike]

Still looking but for now..this was from Mike Pereira last year after a similar play in a FSU game
---------------------------------------------------
To review or not to review, that is the question. So what do you make of three reviews on one play?
 
Where’s Shakespeare when you need him? That said, I’m not sure whether Shakespeare or Hamlet would have been able to figure out what transpired during the Miami-Florida State game Saturday.
 
OK, pay attention as I try to sort out this mess for you.
 
Florida State had the ball, third-and-3 from the FSU 12-yard line with 12 minutes, 36 seconds left in the second quarter. Florida State quarterback E.J. Manuel faded back to pass and, as he was tackled by two Miami defenders near the goal line, was called for intentional grounding. The original ruling on the field was a safety, because the officials thought the ball crossed the plane of the goal while Manual was attempting to pass to avoid being tackled. By rule, intentional grounding in the end zone is a safety.
 
That’s when the confusion began, and I have to say that I’ve never seen anything quite like this play before.
 
Let’s start with the referee having three different conversations with the replay official on the same play. Initially, the replay official determined the call would stand. Then came a second buzz from the booth, and the replay official changed his mind and reversed the decision, taking the points off the board for Miami, spotting the ball at the FSU 1 and making it fourth-and-14 for Florida State. The replay official determined that the position of the body dictated over the position of the ball, and since the body was still in the field of play, it was not a safety.
 
I’m not exactly sure why the replay official buzzed a third time, but he might have been as puzzled as the rest of us. It certainly sent me and my crew to the rule book.
 
The rule is not specifically covered in the book. But if you apply the rule regarding the passer being beyond the line of scrimmage, you could conclude they were probably right in their ruling. Emphasis on probably. In order for the quarterback to be considered illegally beyond the line of scrimmage when passing the football, his entire body and the ball must be beyond the line when the pass is released.
 
So you could make a case, that for the quarterback to be considered in his own end zone when throwing a pass, his entire body and the ball must be in the end zone when the ball leaves his hand.
 
I’m sure that sometime this week, the NCAA’s national coordinator of officiating, Rogers Redding, will come up with a definitive ruling.
 
And now for the final plot twist: I don’t think the play was reviewable.
 
The spot of a foul in relationship to the end zone is not reviewable. There is a specific play in the case book that basically states that. Unless it’s determined that this play was an egregious error, which I don’t think it was, it’s not reviewable.
 
If that doesn’t confuse you, nothing will.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Finally, the spot of a foul is NEVER (egregious mistake, notwithstanding) reviewable...ever.

But isn't the specific exception in 12-3-2-c exactly that?  It's the Illegal Forward Pass review exception as it relates to the NZ?  Isn't that a review of the spot of the foul?

I don't understand how this would not be considered an egregious mistake when an incorrect spot directly leads to points and subsequent change of possession by kick.  Also, what's the real difference between this play and 12-3-2-c where an IFP penalty is reviewable in relation to the NZ?  The specific issue is virtually the same.

[TxSkyBolt]

Would only fall into the egregious category if the goal line was not in question. For example, the ball is thrown from the 4 yd line and the official mistakenly thought it was in the end zone.

To specifically answer your question, no, if the spot of the pass was the 1/4 yd line and the officials ruled it was in the end zone, that would not be egregious.

That just doesn't sound right...guess I don't understand the concept of egregious.  To me, it is egregious to award a team 2 points and give them the ball when they didn't earn it. Suppose this had been the end of the game and the team on Offense lost by a point.  Not egregious?

[RedTD]

TX Mike, That is the play. I'm not looking for an interpretation on whether it is reviewable just how the on-field officials should rule on determining whether it is a safety. I believe he said in a CFO video that it was the position of the ball that was the determining factor but I can't locate the video. 

[ref6983]

That just doesn't sound right...guess I don't understand the concept of egregious.  To me, it is egregious to award a team 2 points and give them the ball when they didn't earn it. Suppose this had been the end of the game and the team on Offense lost by a point.  Not egregious?

Replay Casebook pg 40. Plays 123 and 124 cover this.

[TXMike]

TX Mike, That is the play. I'm not looking for an interpretation on whether it is reviewable just how the on-field officials should rule on determining whether it is a safety. I believe he said in a CFO video that it was the position of the ball that was the determining factor but I can't locate the video.

  Found the game video on Rom Gilbert's site.  Still looking for CFO video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhL_9k8jWSs

[TxSkyBolt]

Replay Casebook pg 40. Plays 123 and 124 cover this.

Thanks.  How about 106 where a score given because of crew error/inattention is corrected as reviewable.  Seems like any unwarranted score should be considered egregious.  Boy, when I'm King....

[ref6983]

Thanks.  How about 106 where a score given because of crew error/inattention is corrected as reviewable.  Seems like any unwarranted score should be considered egregious.  Boy, when I'm King....

No judgment involved on 106. Just an obvious error in rules application that resulted in a significant competitive advantage. Similar to what I wrote about earlier if we put him in the end zone when the pass is really from the 4 yd line. That would be an egregious mistake.

Judging a play at the goal line incorrectly would not be.

[Diablo]

I believe he said in a CFO video that it was the position of the ball that was the determining factor but I can't locate the video.

FWIW, I agree.
For penalty enforcement, an illegal forward pass (illegal intentional grounding) is considered to be a running play.  The spot where run ends, i.e. illegal forward pass is thrown, is the yardline where possession is lost.
2-30-4-a & c.

[Osric Pureheart]

So is the spot of the foul the spot at which the arm starts to move forward, or the spot at which the ball is released from the hand?

 

[110]

Someone here made a big goof.

If the Referee is awarding a safety, then the ball was thrown from behind the LOS, and you have not an illegal forward pass, but intentional grounding, and as safety as option.

If the call is illegal forward pass, then the ball was not in the endzone, since the LOS was clearly beyond the endzone, and therefore, no option for a safety.

[maven]

Someone here made a big goof.

If the Referee is awarding a safety, then the ball was thrown from behind the LOS, and you have not an illegal forward pass, but intentional grounding, and as safety as option.

If the call is illegal forward pass, then the ball was not in the endzone, since the LOS was clearly beyond the endzone, and therefore, no option for a safety.

It's not a "big goof," but a little one. IG is one kind of IFP.

[110]

It's not a "big goof," but a little one. IG is one kind of IFP.

I'd say it was: awarding a safety inappropriately, is two points and a COP to follow.

[maven]

I'd say it was: awarding a safety inappropriately, is two points and a COP to follow.

Your complaint seemed to be that it was a "big goof" because you can't call IFP behind the LOS on this play. But that's a minor goof: the R should have said IG instead of IFP. That little goof made no difference to enforcement.

Now you seem to be concerned about whether it was a safety. That issue turns on the spot of the foul: if it's in the EZ, then you have a safety, and otherwise not. But getting the spot of the foul is unrelated to whether it's IG or some other IFP (or indeed any other foul: any foul by A in the EZ here would be penalized with a safety).

As with any scoring play, that GL is the most important line on the field. And if that's your point, then I agree.

[Andrew McCarthy]

any foul by A in the EZ here would be penalized with a safety

What about illegal touching of a forward pass?

[maven]

What about illegal touching of a forward pass?

If the spot of the foul is in the EZ? You're saying that would not be penalized with a safety?

Either you're thinking of a case where the spot of the foul is not in the EZ, or we're not reading 8-5-1b the same.

[jg-me]

Not every foul by that occurs in their end zone results in a safety. Only the ones that by rule are enforced from their end zone. It is not one of those.

[110]

Your complaint seemed to be that it was a "big goof" because you can't call IFP behind the LOS on this play. But that's a minor goof: the R should have said IG instead of IFP. That little goof made no difference to enforcement.

Now you seem to be concerned about whether it was a safety. That issue turns on the spot of the foul: if it's in the EZ, then you have a safety, and otherwise not. But getting the spot of the foul is unrelated to whether it's IG or some other IFP (or indeed any other foul: any foul by A in the EZ here would be penalized with a safety).

As with any scoring play, that GL is the most important line on the field. And if that's your point, then I agree.

I have a side official come to me with an IFP call, and he says the PF was in the endzone, I'm going to challenge that official seriously. Either pick up the flag, revise to an ineligable receiver, or tell me we have IG. The heaad official should have done that.

There's no way I'm enforcing a IFP for a pass that clearly originated behind the LOS, because that is, by rule, impossible.  I'm a Canadian official, and I know the NCAA/NFHS rules aren't so different in this case.

Simply put, the R shouldn't have allowed such an egregious error at U.S. college. I stand by my comment that this was a major error, with two points and a certain change of possession in the balance.

[maven]

There's no way I'm enforcing a IFP for a pass that clearly originated behind the LOS, because that is, by rule, impossible.  I'm a Canadian official, and I know the NCAA/NFHS rules aren't so different in this case.

First, you still don't seem to be processing the thought that IG is ONE KIND of IFP. To report IG as IFP is not wrong, it's just not very specific. They do have different enforcements, though not when the foul occurs in the EZ.

Second, you CAN have an IFP thrown from behind the LOS. A second forward pass during the down is an IFP, regardless of where it is thrown.

[El Macman]

Second, you CAN have an IFP thrown from behind the LOS. A second forward pass during the down is an IFP, regardless of where it is thrown.

Absolutely. As well as a pass thrown to conserve time.

[Osric Pureheart]

There's no way I'm enforcing a IFP for a pass that clearly originated behind the LOS, because that is, by rule, impossible.  I'm a Canadian official, and I know the NCAA/NFHS rules aren't so different in this case.

Simply put, the R shouldn't have allowed such an egregious error at U.S. college. I stand by my comment that this was a major error, with two points and a certain change of possession in the balance.

It's a big mistake in terminology, sure; and sure it'll get you into trouble if you keep doing it.  But in this one case, the practical effect is nil.  Nothing changes on this play based on whether you've called it intentional grounding or an illegal forward pass.

[110]

It's a big mistake in terminology, sure; and sure it'll get you into trouble if you keep doing it.  But in this one case, the practical effect is nil.  Nothing changes on this play based on whether you've called it intentional grounding or an illegal forward pass.

Apparently my understanding of the American terminology and rules isn't as good as it thought it was. I stand appropriately corrected.

[TXMike]

The play made this week's video release from RR.  He says spot of foul is the end zone.