Author Topic: Intentional Grounding and the End Zone (Read 46043 times)

TXMike · « **on:** November 09, 2012, 04:30:05 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMs8vbYQkdE&feature=youtu.be

What is the spot of foul? Where ball is released or where his feet were?

clydesummers · « **Reply #1 on:** November 09, 2012, 04:55:52 AM »

Might also be intentional grounding if not illegal forward pass...passer out of the pocket and ball did not cross LOS.....interesting to see what is officially determined.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #2 on:** November 09, 2012, 04:56:05 AM »

How did the talking heads know that?

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #3 on:** November 09, 2012, 05:00:57 AM »

Quote from: clydesummers on November 09, 2012, 04:55:52 AM

Might also be intentional grounding if not illegal forward pass...passer out of the pocket and ball did not cross LOS.....interesting to see what is officially determined.

Does the passer out of the pocket exception even apply here?

El Macman · « **Reply #4 on:** November 09, 2012, 06:31:30 AM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on November 09, 2012, 05:00:57 AM

Does the passer out of the pocket exception even apply here?

No, because he wasn't the receiver if the snap, and the ball didn't cross the neutral zone (not even close enough to 'stretch' that it got close enough).
This should have been announced as intentional grounding. Whether it was from the end zone or not we'll debate without clear answer. FWIW, we judge whether or not a pass is forward or backward based upon the point of release. I would think the same thing pertains to the spot of a pass - the actual point of release. In this case, with the aid of multiple slow motion video replay, it certainly appears that the ball was totally out of the end zone when it was released. Not so easy to rule in real time.
If you judge it to be in the end zone, then the announcement is moot - the penalty options are the same. If you judge it to be in the field of play, then this would be a spot foul, LOD (only, although, in this case, even 1/2 the distance would have been meaningless).
Maybe this will be on a Game Review Video.

FLBJ · « **Reply #5 on:** November 09, 2012, 07:10:45 AM »

Okay, just playing 'devil's advocate' here

but given 'recent' rulings regarding intentional grounding, does anyone consider #24, a running back who is blocking, in the vicinity? Lately, if an eligible receiver is within the stadium there is usually a push to not have intentional grounding. Also, this 'exemption', if you will, would NOT be subject to the 'player who receives the snap' limitation, as far as I know (which isn't far...).

I think most would agree he was trying to avoid the safety but would this allow it to be legal?

clearwall · « **Reply #6 on:** November 09, 2012, 08:34:14 AM »

Just curious why this would be an Illegal Forward Pass?

maven · « **Reply #7 on:** November 09, 2012, 08:34:52 AM »

Quote from: El Macman on November 09, 2012, 06:31:30 AM

This should have been announced as intentional grounding. Whether it was from the end zone or not we'll debate without clear answer. FWIW, we judge whether or not a pass is forward or backward based upon the point of release. I would think the same thing applies to the spot of a pass - the actual point of release. In this case, with the aid of multiple slow motion video replay, it certainly appears that the ball was totally out of the end zone when it was released. Not so easy to rule in real time.

I disagree: this ruling is not akin to judging forward or backward (the criteria for which you have stated). Rather, it's more akin to judging whether the passer is behind or beyond the NZ.

IIRC, the NCAA rule states that the passer is behind the NZ unless his entire body is beyond the NZ when he releases the ball. By this test, clearly it was not the case that the passer's entire body was beyond the GL when he released the ball. Thus, the spot of the pass was in the EZ.

The other plausible criterion would be that the spot of the foul for IFP is the end of the run. The end of the run is generally ruled to be where the ball is released. By this criterion, the spot of the foul was not in the EZ, since the ball was completely beyond the GL when released.

Interesting play!

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #8 on:** November 09, 2012, 08:43:24 AM »

The beyond the NZ criteria has nothing to do with this play. This play is very simply where did the "run" end. Where the player's body parts are has no bearing on this call.

This one is a case of the calling official making a split second determination that at least part of the ball was still in the EZ when it left the passer's hands. A pure judgment call.

maven · « **Reply #9 on:** November 09, 2012, 09:36:41 AM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on November 09, 2012, 08:43:24 AM

This one is a case of the calling official making a split second determination that at least part of the ball was still in the EZ when it left the passer's hands. A pure judgment call.

Judgment, sure, but reviewable, right?

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #10 on:** November 09, 2012, 10:53:36 AM »

Should be reviewable based on the fact that it's a scoring play and I would expect it was reviewed by the replay official. The penalty itself is not reviewable but since it's a scoring play that is based on the position of the ball in relation to the goal line (the penalty spot), the spot should be reviewable. Also, where the flag landed is most certainly not the penalty spot.

Diablo · « **Reply #11 on:** November 09, 2012, 12:15:11 PM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on November 09, 2012, 10:53:36 AM

Also, where the flag landed is most certainly not the penalty spot.

What about the spot where the bean bag landed?

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #12 on:** November 09, 2012, 01:07:18 PM »

Quote from: Diablo on November 09, 2012, 12:15:11 PM

What about the spot where the bean bag landed?

When I looked at this another several times and noticed the bean bag, the problem became a bit clearer. The calling official (the source of the bag & flag) was in a bad place to be making a call of +/- inches when he's got a viewing angle 4-5 yards outside the EZ and OB on the wing. At best it's a WAG from there. If replay had the same feed and decent resolution maybe they could (should?) have fixed the enforcement spot?

TxSkyBolt · « **Reply #13 on:** November 09, 2012, 03:23:43 PM »

Is it proper mechanics for the R to give the illegal forward pass signal with his back to the PB?

chymechowder · « **Reply #14 on:** November 10, 2012, 07:40:34 AM »

Quote from: FLBJ on November 09, 2012, 07:10:45 AM

Okay, just playing 'devil's advocate' here but given 'recent' rulings regarding intentional grounding, does anyone consider #24, a running back who is blocking, in the vicinity? Lately, if an eligible receiver is within the stadium there is usually a push to not have intentional grounding. Also, this 'exemption', if you will, would NOT be subject to the 'player who receives the snap' limitation, as far as I know (which isn't far...).

I think most would agree he was trying to avoid the safety but would this allow it to be legal?

Great point. At :12 you can see he's probably within 5 yards of the ball. Still, I'd bet that even Redding would agree that the ball was simply dumped to avoid a safety.

Replay question: is "receiver in the vicinity" something the replay official can make a judgement call on to void the flag?

Andrew McCarthy · « **Reply #15 on:** November 10, 2012, 07:42:21 AM »

Quote from: TxSkyBolt on November 09, 2012, 03:23:43 PM

Is it proper mechanics for the R to give the illegal forward pass signal with his back to the PB?

I would not use this particular referee as an example of proper signals or announcements.

dvasques · « **Reply #16 on:** November 11, 2012, 07:35:00 AM »

ok, dumb BUTT question but why is it ilegal forward pass? Because the handoff was forward?

TXMike · « **Reply #17 on:** November 11, 2012, 07:36:38 AM »

They judged that the ball carrier was throwing the ball forward as he was being tackled. Throwing it forward = pass

dvasques · « **Reply #18 on:** November 11, 2012, 08:41:51 AM »

Yes, but why is it ilegal?

I mean, I see the topic's name is IG and the EZ but it was ruled ilegal forward pass, right?

TxSkyBolt · « **Reply #19 on:** November 11, 2012, 10:02:29 AM »

Intentional grounding is one of the different illegal forward passes but it has it's own signal (which was not used in this instance for some reason). In the truest sense it was an illegal forward pass.

Best regards,

Brad

maven · « **Reply #20 on:** November 11, 2012, 10:03:16 AM »

Quote from: dvasques on November 11, 2012, 08:41:51 AM

Yes, but why is it ilegal?

I mean, I see the topic's name is IG and the EZ but it was ruled ilegal forward pass, right?

IG is one kind of IFP. The R's announcement could have been more specific.

dvasques · « **Reply #21 on:** November 11, 2012, 10:48:38 AM »

Ah... Got it. Sorry, not enough law reading time

El Macman · « **Reply #22 on:** November 11, 2012, 10:48:49 AM »

Quote from: dvasques on November 11, 2012, 08:41:51 AM

Yes, but why is it ilegal?

I mean, I see the topic's name is IG and the EZ but it was ruled ilegal forward pass, right?

Intentional grounding is distinct from other types of illegal passes, not only in the specifics of the act itself, but in penalty. Intentional grounding carries the penalty of loss of down at the spot of the pass (with no additional yardage penalty). Other types of illegal passes all carry a 5-yard penalty from the spot of the pass plus loss of down. Additionally, for an illegal pass to conserve time, the game clock starts on the referee's signal (if being put in play by snap). In all others, the clock starts on the snap (if there is one).

Note that an illegal pass that might be intentional grounding in the first period, might become an illegal pass to conserve time at the end of the second or fourth periods. Different penalties, different signals and announcements.

Finally, note that when an illegal pass is thrown from the end zone and is incomplete, Team B has the option of declining the resulting safety, and taking an artificial result of the play - next down at the previous spot. If the previous down was 4th down, team B gets the ball. If Team A needs a touchdown to win, they might even take this option on 3rd down, to force a punt or other 4th down play, in hopes of a turnover deep in A's territory.

ref6983 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 11, 2012, 01:30:30 PM »

In summary, the only thing the crew got right was that the player that threw the football committed a foul. The foul should have been specifically intentional grounding. Nothing else about the pass was illegal. The HL threw the flag, which is mechanically wrong for ING.

The pass was not obviously thrown from the end zone, so it should not have been a safety. After last year's ING play at the goal line (FSU maybe?) this guidance was given at the national replay clinic.

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

TxSkyBolt · « **Reply #24 on:** November 11, 2012, 03:39:07 PM »

Quote from: ref6983 on November 11, 2012, 01:30:30 PM

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

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

Author Topic: Intentional Grounding and the End Zone (Read 46043 times)

clydesummers

El Macman

maven

maven

Diablo

chymechowder

maven

El Macman