Another hypothetical situation re: NFL rules (1 Viewer)

[Wheelhouse]

How many times have we seen a QB spike the ball to stop the clock? What if a QB got a little lazy with the spike and spiked the ball backwards and not forward? NFL rules say that is a backwards pass, which is considered a live ball. Could this happen? Has this happened and we or the refs haven't realized it before? We just assume it's a spike and that's the end of it. I wonder if teams have thought of this possibility occurring?

 

[AB in DC]

How many times have we seen a QB spike the ball to stop the clock? What if a QB got a little lazy with the spike and spiked the ball backwards and not forward? NFL rules say that is a backwards pass, which is considered a live ball. Could this happen? Has this happened and we or the refs haven't realized it before? We just assume it's a spike and that's the end of it. I wonder if teams have thought of this possibility occurring?

Yes, I'm sure it would be a live ball, but I just can't see a QB spiking the ball backwards.

 

[Defending Champs]

How many times have we seen a QB spike the ball to stop the clock? What if a QB got a little lazy with the spike and spiked the ball backwards and not forward? NFL rules say that is a backwards pass, which is considered a live ball. Could this happen? Has this happened and we or the refs haven't realized it before? We just assume it's a spike and that's the end of it. I wonder if teams have thought of this possibility occurring?

Yes, I'm sure it would be a live ball, but I just can't see a QB spiking the ball backwards.

I bet Aaron Brooks could find a way.

 

[thayman]

It's possible I suppose.....it always happens so fast and the QB is throwing the ball down right at his feet so I don't see how he could turn and throw it backward. I guess you could also ask what would happen if it hit his center, wouldn't that be illegal touching??

 

[The_Man]

I saw the NFL Director of Officiating, Mike Ferreria or something, talking about this once during his weekly segment on NFL Total Access. Basically whenever a QB is deemed to be intentionally spiking the ball to stop play he has extremely wide latitude and things like inadvertantly throwing a lateral or the ball initially contacting an O Lineman are -- by rule -- not called.

I would love to get a copy of the NFL Rulebook. Seems like there's all kinds of crazy stuff in there that you never hear about until it comes up in a game. Why do they keep it so secret?

 

[Wheelhouse]

It's possible I suppose.....it always happens so fast and the QB is throwing the ball down right at his feet so I don't see how he could turn and throw it backward. I guess you could also ask what would happen if it hit his center, wouldn't that be illegal touching??

Sometimes though the QB spikes the ball as he is stepping back or back-pedalling and the throwing motion goes right to his feet or to the side of his feet. I think there's been a few instances where a QB has spiked the ball to his side, but the ball went behind him instead of in front of him. If that's the case - live ball! I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen, but the refs and the other team would have to act on it.

 

[mcjc4]

Thje refs have their whistles in their mouth before the ball is snapped, the second he spikes it the whistle blows. You would now have an inadvertantle whistle and a dead ball anyhow.

 

[Joe Kidd]

I saw the NFL Director of Officiating, Mike Ferreria or something, talking about this once during his weekly segment on NFL Total Access. Basically whenever a QB is deemed to be intentionally spiking the ball to stop play he has extremely wide latitude and things like inadvertantly throwing a lateral or the ball initially contacting an O Lineman are -- by rule -- not called.

Good posting, I was about to post the same thing.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I recall a situation many years ago.....Chris Miller trying to spike the ball.....but the ball slipped out of his hands.....and it was ruled a fumble.

 

[digitalamish]

If you were to really push it, why wouldn't they rule it intentional grounding? That is exactly what it is after all. Why don't they push them back 10 yards?

I've always had a similar through about a kneeldown. It's not recorded as a sack, or even negative yardage against the QB.

 

[TommyGilmore]

If you were to really push it, why wouldn't they rule it intentional grounding? That is exactly what it is after all. Why don't they push them back 10 yards?I've always had a similar through about a kneeldown. It's not recorded as a sack, or even negative yardage against the QB.

Because the rules were specifically rewritten to account for spikes & kneeldowns.And yes, kneeldowns ARE counted as negative rushing yards -- I know this because it cost me a fantasy championship back in 2000 when Jeff Garcia kneeled down 3 consecutive plays for -3 yards.

 

[PMENFAN]

If you were to really push it, why wouldn't they rule it intentional grounding? That is exactly what it is after all. Why don't they push them back 10 yards?I've always had a similar through about a kneeldown. It's not recorded as a sack, or even negative yardage against the QB.

Exactly. I've always wondered the same thing. Why wasn't it a sideline pass instead to stop the clock? Same end result, but consistent with the rules. Just throw to the sideline, over the receivers head. I suppose it takes more time, but the spike is intentional grounding. The kneeldown, or surrender; I didn't know no negative yardage was recorded. I can understand no sack, because there is no intent to pass. He's clearly a runner. But, it's negative. Especially the times where he runs around burning a few seconds, and then kneels. Are there also no negative yards there?

 

[videoguy505]

Thje refs have their whistles in their mouth before the ball is snapped, the second he spikes it the whistle blows. You would now have an inadvertantle whistle and a dead ball anyhow.

... maybe not this year? With the new rule about playing after the whistle when the ball should be live... never know how it would be interpreted until it happens. If one ref blows it dead, but the rest don't and the defense picks up on it and jumps on the ball right away... would be interesting.

 

[Ghost Rider]

If you were to really push it, why wouldn't they rule it intentional grounding? That is exactly what it is after all. Why don't they push them back 10 yards?

If I am not mistaken, intentional grounding is called when a QB downs the ball to avoid a sack. Since there is no immediate pressure when he is spiking the ball to kill the clock, it is not intentional grounding.

 

[Marvelous]

A side note: I think yesterday, Eli Manning spiked the ball from the shotgun to stop the clock.

A few years ago (I forget the teams), there was a botched field goal on 3rd down. The holder did something like throw an int or fumble, so they lost their chance at the field goal (and to win or tie the game). Many people said he should have spiked the ball to get to 4th down. But later, people found the rules say you can only spike the ball when under center.

Did the rules change? Or everyone missed this? Or did I just mis-remember all this?

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

How many times have we seen a QB spike the ball to stop the clock? What if a QB got a little lazy with the spike and spiked the ball backwards and not forward? NFL rules say that is a backwards pass, which is considered a live ball. Could this happen? Has this happened and we or the refs haven't realized it before? We just assume it's a spike and that's the end of it. I wonder if teams have thought of this possibility occurring?

Yes, I'm sure it would be a live ball, but I just can't see a QB spiking the ball backwards.

I've seen many that I've thought were pretty darn close... It will happen sooner or later. So often you see QBs pull out sideways, and then spike it, and sometimes it's close to backward.

 

[Defending Champs]

I recall a situation many years ago.....Chris Miller trying to spike the ball.....but the ball slipped out of his hands.....and it was ruled a fumble.

I remember this one too.

 

[Wheelhouse]

I recall a situation many years ago.....Chris Miller trying to spike the ball.....but the ball slipped out of his hands.....and it was ruled a fumble.

I remember this one too.

Was this pre-tuck rule?

 

[Z-Dog]

I saw the NFL Director of Officiating, Mike Ferreria or something, talking about this once during his weekly segment on NFL Total Access. Basically whenever a QB is deemed to be intentionally spiking the ball to stop play he has extremely wide latitude and things like inadvertantly throwing a lateral or the ball initially contacting an O Lineman are -- by rule -- not called.

I would love to get a copy of the NFL Rulebook. Seems like there's all kinds of crazy stuff in there that you never hear about until it comes up in a game. Why do they keep it so secret?

NFL.com has a rulebook digest for members of the press and whatnot which has some interesting details:linky

You can also purchase a copy - here's a link to Amazon - it's $10.

 

[Regis]

I would love to get a copy of the NFL Rulebook. Seems like there's all kinds of crazy stuff in there that you never hear about until it comes up in a game. Why do they keep it so secret?

My mother bought me a copy of the NFL rulebook for Christmas one year, so they do publish one. I guess it'd be outdated everytime they change a rule. I'm not sure if I still have it and not sure if it was the entire rulebook or just what they want us to know ;-) All I remember is it wasn't a very fun read ;-)

 

[kbcrowe]

I would love to get a copy of the NFL Rulebook. Seems like there's all kinds of crazy stuff in there that you never hear about until it comes up in a game. Why do they keep it so secret?

It's been available at book stores for as long as I can remember. 30 years at least. How is that secret?http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=...p;creative=9325

 

[PMENFAN]

A side note: I think yesterday, Eli Manning spiked the ball from the shotgun to stop the clock.A few years ago (I forget the teams), there was a botched field goal on 3rd down. The holder did something like throw an int or fumble, so they lost their chance at the field goal (and to win or tie the game). Many people said he should have spiked the ball to get to 4th down. But later, people found the rules say you can only spike the ball when under center. Did the rules change? Or everyone missed this? Or did I just mis-remember all this?

Right, you have to be under center to spike the ball to stop the clock. I remember this being covered.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1]

A side note: I think yesterday, Eli Manning spiked the ball from the shotgun to stop the clock.A few years ago (I forget the teams), there was a botched field goal on 3rd down. The holder did something like throw an int or fumble, so they lost their chance at the field goal (and to win or tie the game). Many people said he should have spiked the ball to get to 4th down. But later, people found the rules say you can only spike the ball when under center. Did the rules change? Or everyone missed this? Or did I just mis-remember all this?

I believe that you are thinking of the college rules, which are different. I also believe that you are thinking about a play in which the Giants had a bad snap and the idiot announcer (Cris Collisworth) mistakenly said they should have just spiked it. The only player that can spike a ball is a QB under center according to NFL rules

 

[Wheelhouse]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

 

[Patriotsfatboy1]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

Absolutely. If the player in question is out of the pocket and throws the ball out of bounds, there is no Intentional grounding. For example, on a 3rd down FG try, the snap is bad and the holder rolls out of the pocket and throws it out of the end zone, then they would get another shot at it.

 

[Ears]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

Absolutely. If the player in question is out of the pocket and throws the ball out of bounds, there is no Intentional grounding. For example, on a 3rd down FG try, the snap is bad and the holder rolls out of the pocket and throws it out of the end zone, then they would get another shot at it.

I believe he'd just have to get it across the LoS.edit for typo

 

[j3r3m3y]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

Absolutely. If the player in question is out of the pocket and throws the ball out of bounds, there is no Intentional grounding. For example, on a 3rd down FG try, the snap is bad and the holder rolls out of the pocket and throws it out of the end zone, then they would get another shot at it.

I believe he'd just have to get it across the LoS.edit for typo

That would be an illegal forward pass

 

[Patriotsfatboy1]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

Absolutely. If the player in question is out of the pocket and throws the ball out of bounds, there is no Intentional grounding. For example, on a 3rd down FG try, the snap is bad and the holder rolls out of the pocket and throws it out of the end zone, then they would get another shot at it.

I believe he'd just have to get it across the LoS.edit for typo

That is another option. However, the poster asked the question of whether he could throw it out of bounds, which is why I used that example. The point is that the player with the ball has the same rules with respect to grounding as a QB in the shotgun would have.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

Absolutely. If the player in question is out of the pocket and throws the ball out of bounds, there is no Intentional grounding. For example, on a 3rd down FG try, the snap is bad and the holder rolls out of the pocket and throws it out of the end zone, then they would get another shot at it.

I believe he'd just have to get it across the LoS.edit for typo

That would be an illegal forward pass

Why?

 

[TommyGilmore]

I recall a situation many years ago.....Chris Miller trying to spike the ball.....but the ball slipped out of his hands.....and it was ruled a fumble.

I remember this one too.

Was this pre-tuck rule?

Not sure if the tuck rule was in effect...but if I remember the Chris Miller situation correctly, the ball slipped out of his hand before his hand actually moved forward. So even though his "intention" was to spike the ball, the ball did not spike.

 

[gorf]

Thje refs have their whistles in their mouth before the ball is snapped, the second he spikes it the whistle blows. You would now have an inadvertantle whistle and a dead ball anyhow.

this kind of takes the fun out of it...remember last year or the year before when peyton manning tried to run a trick play? -- he pretended to spike the ball, then he attempted (completed?) a pass. trickery i tell ya. it was disallowed because the whistle was blown right away.

 

[j3r3m3y]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

Absolutely. If the player in question is out of the pocket and throws the ball out of bounds, there is no Intentional grounding. For example, on a 3rd down FG try, the snap is bad and the holder rolls out of the pocket and throws it out of the end zone, then they would get another shot at it.

I believe he'd just have to get it across the LoS.edit for typo

That would be an illegal forward pass

Why?

I misread, I didn't see the word "it".Where is that hooked on phonics video?

 

[Ears]

I believe he'd just have to get it across the LoS.edit for typo

That would be an illegal forward pass

Why?

I misread, I didn't see the word "it".Where is that hooked on phonics video?

Sorry j3r3m3y - I was lazy with my response. I meant to indicate that he wouldn't have to throw it out of the end zone, just OB & across LoS.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

My 2006-2007 rules are on the way from Amazon.

Here are the 2001-2002 rules on intentional grounding:

Rule 8, Section 3, Article 1.

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an immenent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

Note 1: The penalty is the sole responsibilty of the referee and the protection of the passer is his primary responsibity; the flight of the ball is secondary. If there is any question, the referee should not call intentional grounding.

Note 2: Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an immenent loss of yardage, throws a forward pass that lands near or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive players have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or endline).

Note 3: A passer, after delaying his passing action for strategic purposes, is prohibited from throwing the ball to the ground in front of him, even though he is under no pressure from defensive rusher(s).

Note 4: A passer is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if immediately upon receiving the snap he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly forward into the ground.

Note 5: If a defender's action on the passer significantly affects the normal throwing of a forward pass to a receiver, intentional grounding should not be called.

Penalty: For intentional grounding: Loss of down and 10 yards from the previous spot, or if foul occurs more than 10 yards from the line of scrimmage or where it is more advantageous to the defense, loss of down at spot of foul, or safety if passer is in his end zone when ball is thrown.

Note: The penalty for intentional grounding may be declined and the result of the play is an incomplete pass.

 

[j3r3m3y]

I believe he'd just have to get it across the LoS.edit for typo

That would be an illegal forward pass

Why?

I misread, I didn't see the word "it".Where is that hooked on phonics video?

Sorry j3r3m3y - I was lazy with my response. I meant to indicate that he wouldn't have to throw it out of the end zone, just OB & across LoS.

Well, I would assume the same "out of the pocket and ball to the LoS" rule would apply regardless of who is throwing it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

On a reverse, several linemen will be downfield, so a penalty would be called for ineligible man downfield if the guy throws it.But there's no distinction between quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers, etc. in the rules. The rules never use the word "quarterback" (except in the section describing what jersey numbers may be worn by different players) -- they use the word "passer."

 

[Pantherz]

My 2006-2007 rules are on the way from Amazon.

Here are the 2001-2002 rules on intentional grounding:

Rule 8, Section 3, Article 1.

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an immenent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

Note 1: The penalty is the sole responsibilty of the referee and the protection of the passer is his primary responsibity; the flight of the ball is secondary. If there is any question, the referee should not call intentional grounding.

Note 2: Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an immenent loss of yardage, throws a forward pass that lands near or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive players have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or endline).

Note 3: A passer, after delaying his passing action for strategic purposes, is prohibited from throwing the ball to the ground in front of him, even though he is under no pressure from defensive rusher(s).

Note 4: A passer is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if immediately upon receiving the snap he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly forward into the ground.

Note 5: If a defender's action on the passer significantly affects the normal throwing of a forward pass to a receiver, intentional grounding should not be called.

Penalty: For intentional grounding: Loss of down and 10 yards from the previous spot, or if foul occurs more than 10 yards from the line of scrimmage or where it is more advantageous to the defense, loss of down at spot of foul, or safety if passer is in his end zone when ball is thrown.

Note: The penalty for intentional grounding may be declined and the result of the play is an incomplete pass.

I find it hard to believe that they use language as vague as the word "near" in a written rule book at all. near = 1 foot? 1 yard? 2 yards?

 

[GregR_2]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

On a reverse, several linemen will be downfield, so a penalty would be called for ineligible man downfield if the guy throws it.But there's no distinction between quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers, etc. in the rules. The rules never use the word "quarterback" (except in the section describing what jersey numbers may be worn by different players) -- they use the word "passer."

Last year, didn't Samkon Gado have a rush from his own endzone that he was going to be tackled for a safety on, and he threw the ball away successfully? As you say, long as his linemen aren't down field, he can do it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

On a reverse, several linemen will be downfield, so a penalty would be called for ineligible man downfield if the guy throws it.But there's no distinction between quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers, etc. in the rules. The rules never use the word "quarterback" (except in the section describing what jersey numbers may be worn by different players) -- they use the word "passer."

Last year, didn't Samkon Gado have a rush from his own endzone that he was going to be tackled for a safety on, and he threw the ball away successfully? As you say, long as his linemen aren't down field, he can do it.

If his linemen aren't downfield, he can throw the ball away to the same extent that a quarterback can -- i.e., he'd have to be outside the tackles and he'd have to get the ball up to the line of scrimmage (unless he had an eligible receiver in the area).I don't remember the play you're referring to. But it would be rare for linemen not to be downfield on a designed running play.

 

[shakeybarn]

How many times have we seen a QB spike the ball to stop the clock? What if a QB got a little lazy with the spike and spiked the ball backwards and not forward? NFL rules say that is a backwards pass, which is considered a live ball. Could this happen? Has this happened and we or the refs haven't realized it before? We just assume it's a spike and that's the end of it. I wonder if teams have thought of this possibility occurring?

Yes, I'm sure it would be a live ball, but I just can't see a QB spiking the ball backwards.

eh... you'd be shocked, if you really looked close... a lot of times, they spike straight down the side of their leg. could happen if refs were reallyl looking and finicky... ...however, in the spirit of the rule...

 

[GregR_2]

Here it is. http://www.detroitlions.com/document_displ...ument_id=439649

A Call of Significance

Lions Confused by the Reversal of a Possible Game-Winning Safety

By Chuck Klonke

Detroitlions.com

December 11, 2005

GREEN BAY, Wisc. -- Confused. Baffled. Disappointed.

Those words all describe the Lions' feelings after Sunday's 16-13 overtime loss to Green Bay at frigid Lambeau Field.

The confusion came after Detroit was awarded a safety in the fourth quarter, only to see it taken away after referee Mike Carey huddled with his crew for several minutes.

Carey initially said that there were two fouls on the play in which running back Samkon Gado was tackled in the end zone, but appeared to throw the ball across the goal line as he was being brought down. Carey said that there was a holding penalty against right tackle Mark Tauscher. He also said that Gado was penalized for intentional grounding.

Either of those penalties should have resulted in a safety if they occurred in the end zone.

After the officials huddled, they said that Gado was out of the pocket so there was no intentional grounding. They also decided that Tauscher's holding penalty did not occur in the end zone, although television replays showed that the infraction happened behind the goal line.

"We were told that the holding didn't occur in the end zone," said interim coach **** Jauron. "I don't know what else to say about it. He said the passer was out of the pocket and there was no intentional grounding because the forward pass got to the line of scrimmage.

"Initially I saw the red flag on their side of the field so I asked Mike Carey what the red flag was for because it's not reviewable by a coach. He assured me that he didn't talk to (Green Bay coach) Mike Sherman until he had made his decision. How can another coach affect a decision by throwing a flag when he has nothing to review? But that's the way it goes. That's the way it's gone for us this year, but you have to make your own breaks."

ESPN's veteran broadcast crew of Mike Patrick, Joe Theismann and Paul Maguire were also in agreement that there should have been a safety.

The reversal had Lions cornerback Dre' Bly completely baffled.

"It wasn't even a pass play. He was trying to avoid the safety," Bly said. "The way they called it the first time is the way it should have been. I don't know their reason for overruling it, but it's crazy.

"Replays are supposed to help you but we've had two incidents this year where it's hurt us. I"m all for the officials and what they try to do. I never criticize the officials, but there are two games where the outcome could have been different if the right decision had been called. I thought they got us tonight because we played well enough to win."

R.W. McQuarters was one Lions' player who wanted more of an explanation to the call in Sunday's game. (Photo by Steve Kovich).

The other game Bly was referring to was Detroit's 17-13 loss to Tampa Bay on Oct. 2, when Marcus Pollard's apparent catch for the winning touchdown was ruled incomplete after the referee studied the replay.

Cornerback R.W. McQuarters, who had a fine game returning kicks for the injured Eddie Drummond and played well in the secondary, wanted more of an explanation than he received.

"Anytime you take points off the board it's a big question as to what actually happened," McQuarters said. "That play was definitely the turning point in the game.

"They said it was a fumble, then an incomplete pass, and you've got holding. It's one of those calls I've never heard before and I still don't understand it. It just didn't make sense. We're not whining or crying, but when you lose games like that it hurts."

Several Lions felt that it never should have come down to the safety that wasn't.

"If we'd have been able to score those touchdowns, we'd have never been in the situation where we're questioning officials' calls," said guard Damien Woody.

Roy Williams, who made a spectacular catch in the end zone for Detroit's only touchdown, agreed.

"It shouldn't have come down to the officials," Williams said. "We should have punched the ball in and won this game 20-10."

 

[harrycarey]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

On a reverse, several linemen will be downfield, so a penalty would be called for ineligible man downfield if the guy throws it.But there's no distinction between quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers, etc. in the rules. The rules never use the word "quarterback" (except in the section describing what jersey numbers may be worn by different players) -- they use the word "passer."

Last year, didn't Samkon Gado have a rush from his own endzone that he was going to be tackled for a safety on, and he threw the ball away successfully? As you say, long as his linemen aren't down field, he can do it.

If his linemen aren't downfield, he can throw the ball away to the same extent that a quarterback can -- i.e., he'd have to be outside the tackles and he'd have to get the ball up to the line of scrimmage (unless he had an eligible receiver in the area).I don't remember the play you're referring to. But it would be rare for linemen not to be downfield on a designed running play.

Also, couldn't they call offensive pass interference if a wr is blocking downfield when the rb/wr threw the ball away

 

[gorf]

Just wondering? Can a non-QB throw the ball out of bounds without getting a Int. grounding penalty? Case in point, when a reverse goes horribly wrong and the play is looking like big loss of yards, can the WR just toss the ball out of bounds as an incomplete pass and thus not have to lose all those yards?

On a reverse, several linemen will be downfield, so a penalty would be called for ineligible man downfield if the guy throws it.But there's no distinction between quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers, etc. in the rules. The rules never use the word "quarterback" (except in the section describing what jersey numbers may be worn by different players) -- they use the word "passer."

Last year, didn't Samkon Gado have a rush from his own endzone that he was going to be tackled for a safety on, and he threw the ball away successfully? As you say, long as his linemen aren't down field, he can do it.

If his linemen aren't downfield, he can throw the ball away to the same extent that a quarterback can -- i.e., he'd have to be outside the tackles and he'd have to get the ball up to the line of scrimmage (unless he had an eligible receiver in the area).I don't remember the play you're referring to. But it would be rare for linemen not to be downfield on a designed running play.

even if they were, though, so what? they get the penalty for the lineman being downfield, but at least it's not a safety... smart play by gado even if they call a penalty (as long as the penalty isn't intentional grounding).

 

[Spartans Rule]

Here it is. http://www.detroitlions.com/document_displ...ument_id=439649

A Call of Significance

Lions Confused by the Reversal of a Possible Game-Winning Safety

By Chuck Klonke

Detroitlions.com

December 11, 2005

GREEN BAY, Wisc. -- Confused. Baffled. Disappointed.

Those words all describe the Lions' feelings after Sunday's 16-13 overtime loss to Green Bay at frigid Lambeau Field.

The confusion came after Detroit was awarded a safety in the fourth quarter, only to see it taken away after referee Mike Carey huddled with his crew for several minutes.

Carey initially said that there were two fouls on the play in which running back Samkon Gado was tackled in the end zone, but appeared to throw the ball across the goal line as he was being brought down. Carey said that there was a holding penalty against right tackle Mark Tauscher. He also said that Gado was penalized for intentional grounding.

Either of those penalties should have resulted in a safety if they occurred in the end zone.

After the officials huddled, they said that Gado was out of the pocket so there was no intentional grounding. They also decided that Tauscher's holding penalty did not occur in the end zone, although television replays showed that the infraction happened behind the goal line.

"We were told that the holding didn't occur in the end zone," said interim coach **** Jauron. "I don't know what else to say about it. He said the passer was out of the pocket and there was no intentional grounding because the forward pass got to the line of scrimmage.

"Initially I saw the red flag on their side of the field so I asked Mike Carey what the red flag was for because it's not reviewable by a coach. He assured me that he didn't talk to (Green Bay coach) Mike Sherman until he had made his decision. How can another coach affect a decision by throwing a flag when he has nothing to review? But that's the way it goes. That's the way it's gone for us this year, but you have to make your own breaks."

ESPN's veteran broadcast crew of Mike Patrick, Joe Theismann and Paul Maguire were also in agreement that there should have been a safety.

The reversal had Lions cornerback Dre' Bly completely baffled.

"It wasn't even a pass play. He was trying to avoid the safety," Bly said. "The way they called it the first time is the way it should have been. I don't know their reason for overruling it, but it's crazy.

"Replays are supposed to help you but we've had two incidents this year where it's hurt us. I"m all for the officials and what they try to do. I never criticize the officials, but there are two games where the outcome could have been different if the right decision had been called. I thought they got us tonight because we played well enough to win."

R.W. McQuarters was one Lions' player who wanted more of an explanation to the call in Sunday's game. (Photo by Steve Kovich).

The other game Bly was referring to was Detroit's 17-13 loss to Tampa Bay on Oct. 2, when Marcus Pollard's apparent catch for the winning touchdown was ruled incomplete after the referee studied the replay.

Cornerback R.W. McQuarters, who had a fine game returning kicks for the injured Eddie Drummond and played well in the secondary, wanted more of an explanation than he received.

"Anytime you take points off the board it's a big question as to what actually happened," McQuarters said. "That play was definitely the turning point in the game.

"They said it was a fumble, then an incomplete pass, and you've got holding. It's one of those calls I've never heard before and I still don't understand it. It just didn't make sense. We're not whining or crying, but when you lose games like that it hurts."

Several Lions felt that it never should have come down to the safety that wasn't.

"If we'd have been able to score those touchdowns, we'd have never been in the situation where we're questioning officials' calls," said guard Damien Woody.

Roy Williams, who made a spectacular catch in the end zone for Detroit's only touchdown, agreed.

"It shouldn't have come down to the officials," Williams said. "We should have punched the ball in and won this game 20-10."

That was an unbelievably awful ruling. If that game had any real significance to it at all, I would have been furious.