Refs blew double pass (3 Viewers)

[hankster2]

imma help you out here. in the quoted above

PASSES the LINE OF SCRIMMAGE.

The batted ball didnt PASS the LOS.

The rule you are talking about above is if a QB RUNS PAST LOS and throws. ( or RB ) ...or flea flicker where the RB runs PAST LOS then tosses back.

I hope this clears it up now.

Nice try.

You're actually wrong on the points you've made above, but Imma help you out here. The first sentence covers the double-pass situation. The second sentence says if you cross the line of scrimmage, you get 0 forward passes. I invite you to reread it.

A forward pass is a forward pass independent of whether it crosses the LOS.

LEGAL FORWARD PASS Article 2 Legal Forward Pass. The offensive team may make one forward pass from behind the line during each down.

There's definitely some disagreement on how the rule should be interpreted. I get that people want to reference Article 2 that a ball can be advanced after an illegal forward pass because it does have the word "caught" in there, but the title of that article/section is Intercepted Illegal Pass. If I was applying the rules based on my interpretation of what is written, then it's 4th & 10 because I wouldn't be applying that section.

 

[efil4stnias]

Once again... this has all been stated repeatedly and I fully understand the situation and what happened. I'm saying that allowing the pass yardage in the context of declining the penalty is the part I question and I haven't seen anyone give evidence that shows that the pass yardage should've been allowed if the penalty was declined.

Here's evidence to the contrary:


Pretty cut and dry.

Notice there's no asterisk saying "unless the penalty is declined". It says not permissible.

I'm still convinced the refs botched the call. It should've been 4th and 10 with the penalty declined.

The penalty rules are clear and on page 2.

So you have issue with the penalty portion of the rules. Not the language? Am I understanding right?

 

[efil4stnias]

Best analogy I can come up with is if I throw a rock thru your window, you now have the option of pressing charges or not. If you press charges (accept the penalty) I suffer from the resulting penalty.
If you decline to press charges... Nothing happens to me other than me paying for your window.

But me throwing a rock thru your window is still illegal.

 

[rob22278]

The penalty rules are clear and on page 2.

So you have issue with the penalty portion of the rules. Not the language? Am I understand right?

There was also the problem of the play being blown dead as soon as Brady threw the second pass. Yes Evans caught it but the Rams defense stopped playing and didn’t finish the tackle. Yet the bucs were given the ball at the spot he caught the ball since the Rams declined the penalty.

How could the refs spot the ball at a spot that was reached after the play was blown dead?

 

[Clintonrebel]

I believe that the Rams refused the penalty in order to force 4th down.

Illegal forward pass brings loss of down, so it wasn't that.

 

[Clintonrebel]

Are they required to? Is it the officiating crew’s responsibility to tell an NFL franchise what the yardage and down result of the penalty enforcement is? I legitimately don’t know the answer to that.

Yes. Technically they are supposed to explain it to the captain, but with all of the technology on the field today, the decision usually is made by the coach. Even in high school the white hat explains all of the options thoroughly.

 

[bsmooth25]

Find me a game where refs don't blow a call. Sheesh.

 

[COACHTDL]

The Brady effect

 

[T.Sneden84]

isnt it in essence supposed to be just like intentional grounding with he loss of down ? minus spotting it where the QB throws it from.

 

[stooge]

Notice there's no asterisk saying "unless the penalty is declined". It says not permissible.

Holding or pass interference isn’t permissible, but the opposing team can still decline the penalty for those actions.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

isnt it in essence supposed to be just like intentional grounding with he loss of down ? minus spotting it where the QB throws it from.

I am conceding that the ruling on the field was correctly officiated, considering the penalty cited was an illegal forward pass. That being said, TB was awarded the yardage because LA declined the penalty and that just look right at all. I think the officials could have called intentional grounding considering its definition from the rule book:

SECTION 2 - INTENTIONAL GROUNDING

ARTICLE 1. DEFINITION
It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. A realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that is thrown in the direction of and lands in the vicinity of an originally eligible offensive receiver.

A second forward pass behind the LOS does not have a realistic chance of completion either.

 

[Thunderchild]

Illegal forward pass brings loss of down, so it wasn't that.

Or it was. Lots of discussion about what actually took place and what the rules state in this thread.

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

 

[Merl]

Or it was. Lots of discussion about what actually took place and what the rules state in this thread.

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

It has been shown as a matter of fact that in this extremely rare situation the rule does NOT call for a loss of down. The only opinion is wether the rule should be changed to include loss of down I think it should.

 

[DaveXA]

Illegal forward pass brings loss of down, so it wasn't that.

Again, according to the rules, an illegal forward pass that was thrown from behind the line of scrimmage is a 5 yard penalty and replay the down.

The rule should be changed such that any illegal forward pass should result in a loss of down. An intentional grounding penalty results in a loss of down, but that's not the same thing as an illegal forward pass behind the line of scrimmage.

 

[Thunderchild]

It has been shown as a matter of fact that in this extremely rare situation the rule does NOT call for a loss of down. The only opinion is wether the rule should be changed to include loss of down I think it should.

Yeah. I read all the posts and actually understood them. My reply was one of gentle sarcasm intended to answer the reply I quoted.

Thanks anyway.