This was ruled an incomplete pass after review
- Thread starter PSUWrestlingFanSince2011
- Start date
One could make an argument for intentional grounding based on the 2nd angle.
The 1st angle certainly appears to be a fumble.
I will comment again as someone who has done some officiating, your sight lines are so important in making your determination of what actually happened.
What you saw and believed to be correct based upon your view could actually be wrong. And you were 100% right on what you called because you can only call what you see (and not what a camera or someone else may see).
The problem was they couldn’t call grounding after reversing the call on review. Definite flaw in system since they are supposed to let possible fumbles play out and review later.
It's definitely a forward pass by definition (though I think that what is deemed a forward pass is too broad but they do that to avoid subjectivity).
It's also definitely intentional grounding by definition. Sounds like it was a technical matter that prevented that from being called since it was a review and I think that's a problem as intentional grounding should be a reviewable play.
It's also definitely intentional grounding by definition. Sounds like it was a technical matter that prevented that from being called since it was a review and I think that's a problem as intentional grounding should be a reviewable play.
It’s a pass. May be an illegal pass but it was a pass nonetheless.
At first glance you would think it has to be something, but it's not. Incomplete pass. There's a receiver 4 feet away from where the ball landed.
Tough call for the on-field refs. A lot comes down the the ref's opinion. I recall PSU getting called for grounding when the QB and WR miscommunicated and the QB threw the ball into a empty mess and the ref called grounding. Go figure.
In this case, while there was a player "in the area" there is no way this wasn't grounding. But even that would have taken the TD off the board. So it isn't as big of a deal. It was clearly a forward pass. The only issue, in my mind, was if it was grounding or not. And I think it was clearly grounding regardless of where an eligible receiver was standing.
In this case, while there was a player "in the area" there is no way this wasn't grounding. But even that would have taken the TD off the board. So it isn't as big of a deal. It was clearly a forward pass. The only issue, in my mind, was if it was grounding or not. And I think it was clearly grounding regardless of where an eligible receiver was standing.
As the distress for the qb increases, the more scrutiny for the “pass.” The intent was clearly grounding to avoid a sack.
Just for clarification purposes. If he intentionally released the ball backwards, it would be considered a fumbled lateral.
He clearly appears to be intentionally throwing it to the ground. If I were the ref, I'd ignore that and rule it a fumble. If you're dumb enough to do that, you deserve the turnover as opposed to grounding and loss of down. Shouldn't award that type of action.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Pair of Big Ten programs to pay visit to four-star OL Gregory Patrick- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
Football Former Penn State corner Cam Miller commits to Rutgers
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
