2019 Game Goat Thread: Wk. 9 at Ravens

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
And the official would have been suspended for not calling that ridiculous grounding penalty on Brady? That gets called on no quarterback ever in football except him.
I'm actually curious what CFB rules thinks of the grounding call. He specifically stated that only the OPI was a close call in his opinion but it did seem to me that the grounding call was bad. It was clear there was a guy there and if he turned the other way it would have been a potentially catchable ball.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Not if the defender isn't playing outside leverage which based on your diagram appears to be the case. This isn't a 10yard out across the field he would need to make. This would have been a pass to the LOS to a RB in space single covered. I don't think those passes are picked off at a high rate and the end result of the play was a pick that was returned to the 30 and resulted in a long TD drive effectively ending the game. A pick 6 there at least gives you some time back on the clock.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. At any rate, your criticism hat Brady's INT was "indefensible" doesn't hold water. You can say it wasn't the optimal decision, but all of Brady's options there were bad.
 

BillLeesJumpShot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
124
Williston
Many people saying white tripped on his own

Didn't he step on a lineman's foot who was being pushed backward? Do I remember that correctly?

I mean it sucks to trip, but it isn't like he just fell on his own. He went to plant expecting solid ground and got unsolid ground where he didn't expect it. Like walking down a set of stairs and you think you're at the bottom but there is one more stair - you stumble
He clearly stepped on the back of the blocking lineman's heel, in one of the replays. I think Collingsworth mentioned it in his commentary.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
I'm actually curious what CFB rules thinks of the grounding call. He specifically stated that only the OPI was a close call in his opinion but it did seem to me that the grounding call was bad. It was clear there was a guy there and if he turned the other way it would have been a potentially catchable ball.
Same here. If Brady isn’t under duress and that throw still happens, do they call it grounding? Seems like refs always pre-judge intent by Brady on these grounding calls.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. At any rate, your criticism hat Brady's INT was "indefensible" doesn't hold water. You can say it wasn't the optimal decision, but all of Brady's options there were bad.
It was indefensible in that the second it left his hand I was fully expecting a bad outcome. There was little doubt the pass wasn't going to be picked once I saw the trajectory and Thomas waiting to catch it. I guess it could have been a decent "punt" if Sanu had touched Thomas down but punting on 3rd seems sub-optimal to me. The play calling can also be blamed but I'd have to watch the replay to see if Brady had audibled into that causing his own problem.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,273
AZ
Same here. If Brady isn’t under duress and that throw still happens, do they call it grounding? Seems like refs always pre-judge intent by Brady on these grounding calls.
I'm not CFB, but live I thought it was clearly grounding. No receiver in the area, in the pocket, under duress. In fact, as soon as I saw Brady run toward the ump to assert there was PI, I thought immediately, "I know what he's doing, he's trying to lobby to get out of an IG call." CFB or others can tell us, but I don't think "I thought the receiver would run a different route" doesn't seem to be a defense under the rule.

Brady throws the ball away more from inside the pocket than any other current QB I have seen. Most QBs get out of the tackle box when they throw it away or they throw it 15 feet high out of the back of the end zone, which never seems to get called. I've actually thought there were some additional times he could have gotten called this year, like when he spikes the ball 10 feet short of a running back who has his back turned and the refs give him the benefit of the doubt.

The lore seems to be that nobody else gets called like Brady gets called, but I just never see anyone else with so many throw always as Brady, except maybe Rodgers, but he's more mobile and can usually take a couple of steps left or right before he does it. Brady is a master at throwaways -- best I've ever seen at feeling pressure and avoiding negative plays. He has almost perfected it. He's going to take some calls. Given that it's no worse, really, than a sack, and certainly better than an interception, I can live with it.

I could also live with them getting rid of the rule. I think it's a dumb rule, especially in the era of QB safety. It's a sack-encouraging rule. Why are we encouraging sacks? I could see if the rule was that it's unsporting to throw the ball away, so you're not allowed to do it, but that's not the rule. The rule is that you can do it now, just so long as you take a couple steps left or right. Why should the intentional grounding rule favor mobile quarterbacks? Make it a legal play or don't.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
I'm not CFB, but live I thought it was clearly grounding. No receiver in the area, in the pocket, under duress. In fact, as soon as I saw Brady run toward the ump to assert there was PI, I thought immediately, "I know what he's doing, he's trying to lobby to get out of an IG call." CFB or others can tell us, but I don't think "I thought the receiver would run a different route" doesn't seem to be a defense under the rule.

Brady throws the ball away more from inside the pocket than any other current QB I have seen. Most QBs get out of the tackle box when they throw it away or they throw it 15 feet high out of the back of the end zone, which never seems to get called. I've actually thought there were some additional times he could have gotten called this year, like when he spikes the ball 10 feet short of a running back who has his back turned and the refs give him the benefit of the doubt.

The lore seems to be that nobody else gets called like Brady gets called, but I just never see anyone else with so many throw always as Brady, except maybe Rodgers, but he's more mobile and can usually take a couple of steps left or right before he does it. Brady is a master at throwaways -- best I've ever seen at feeling pressure and avoiding negative plays. He has almost perfected it. He's going to take some calls. Given that it's no worse, really, than a sack, and certainly better than an interception, I can live with it.

I could also live with them getting rid of the rule. I think it's a dumb rule, especially in the era of QB safety. It's a sack-encouraging rule. Why are we encouraging sacks? I could see if the rule was that it's unsporting to throw the ball away, so you're not allowed to do it, but that's not the rule. The rule is that you can do it now, just so long as you take a couple steps left or right. Why should the intentional grounding rule favor mobile quarterbacks? Make it a legal play or don't.
Fair and reasonable points. But what happens when the receiver actually does run the wrong route when Brady is under duress giving the appearance of a throwaway when it could have been a miscommunication? We see this all the time when a WR stops short on a route or breaks it off in a different direction than the QB is expecting.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
CFB talks about the intent of the rules quite a bit and that’s very helpful stuff. But pretty clearly the intent of “intentional grounding” is....um.... intentionally throwing the ball away to avoid a sack.

On the IG penalty last night, Brady threw it before the receiver made his break. Yes Brady was under duress but that happens a million times a game. I don’t think the IG penalty is meant for when a QB and WR miscommunicate on whether the break should be to the inside or outside and the pass ends up 15 yards from the receiver.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
On the neutral zone infraction....

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/neutral-zone-infraction/
“ARTICLE 4. NEUTRAL ZONE INFRACTION
It is a Neutral Zone Infraction when:

a defender moves beyond the neutral zone prior to the snap and is parallel to or beyond an offensive lineman, with an unimpeded path to the quarterback or kicker, even though no contact is made by a blocker; officials are to blow their whistles immediately

a defender enters the neutral zone prior to the snap, causing the offensive player(s) in close proximity (including a quarterback who is under center) to react (move) immediately to protect himself (themselves) against impending contact; officials are to blow their whistles immediately. If there is no immediate reaction by the offensive player(s) in close proximity, and the defensive player returns to a legal position prior to the snap without contacting an opponent, there is no foul. A flexed or split receiver is considered to be in close proximity if he is lined up on the side of the ball on which the violation occurs; other offensive players are considered to be in close proximity if they are within two-and-one-half positions of the defender who enters the neutral zone. If the defender is directly over the center, a quarterback under center, the center, and the guards and tackles on both sides of the center are considered to be within close proximity; if the defender is in a gap, the two offensive players on either side of the gap are considered to be within close proximity (including a quarterback under center, if applicable)

a player, after he has received a warning, enters the neutral zone. It is a foul, even if he returns to a legal position prior to the snap without contacting an opponent or causing a reaction (movement) by an offensive player in close proximity.”


So....

Not only did Butler not enter into the neutral zone at all, but he got back from his two inch forward movement and set before the offensive lineman moved. So by no aspect of the actual rule did Butler deserve a penalty.
 
Last edited:

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Brady throws the ball away more from inside the pocket than any other current QB I have seen. Most QBs get out of the tackle box when they throw it away or they throw it 15 feet high out of the back of the end zone, which never seems to get called. I've actually thought there were some additional times he could have gotten called this year, like when he spikes the ball 10 feet short of a running back who has his back turned and the refs give him the benefit of the doubt.
Brady did get called for the bolded in Seattle a few years ago. He threw the ball out of the end zone, but hadn't left the tackle box (*), and got called. That's literally the only time I've seen grounding get called on a ball thrown out of the back of the end zone.

As for the play last night, the rule book doesn't really define any exceptions for receiver-QB miscommunication. The actual 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 receiver.
EDIT: The officials may be given some leeway, but the referee throwing the flag is not going to know if the receiver ran the wrong route. It's not their job to know the Pats route trees. One could argue that the call was a bit ticky-tack, but the call is technically proper as per the rule book.

EDIT: (*): In that Seattle play, Brady couldn't leave the tackle box because the clock would have run down to zero, so he did what he had to do in a vain attempt to keep the drive alive. Just weird in that for whatever reason, officials let QB's throw out of the end zone all the time, except for that one.
 
Last edited:

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,273
AZ
CFB talks about the intent of the rules quite a bit and that’s very helpful stuff. But pretty clearly the intent of “intentional grounding” is....um.... intentionally throwing the ball away to avoid a sack.

On the IG penalty last night, Brady threw it before the receiver made his break. Yes Brady was under duress but that happens a million times a game. I don’t think the IG penalty is meant for when a QB and WR miscommunicate on whether the break should be to the inside or outside and the pass ends up 15 yards from the receiver.
So, my understanding is that while the rule still keeps the name "intentional grounding," it was changed several years (and tweaked at least once since) to make it more objective and to add the requirement that you can throw the ball away if you get out of the tackle box and get past the line of scrimmage. (And clock it.) Prior to 1993, officials had to determine intent, but now, the rule is pretty much objective. The only subjective part is whether the QB is under duress and facing an imminent loss of yardage. There are squishy words in the rulebook, like "vicinity" that give officials continuing discretion, but my understanding is that IG is taught as an objective rule these days. I think it's part of a general overhaul in the NFL (that has coincided with a similar effort in the NHL) to attempt to make things less subjective. There are still plenty of subjective things in the rule book -- like whether a blow to the head is forceable -- but pretty much with every year the trend is toward less subjective judgment and more objective criteria. Debatable whether that's a good thing, I guess.

Fair and reasonable points. But what happens when the receiver actually does run the wrong route when Brady is under duress giving the appearance of a throwaway when it could have been a miscommunication? We see this all the time when a WR stops short on a route or breaks it off in a different direction than the QB is expecting.

Brady did get called for the bolded in Seattle a few years ago. He threw the ball out of the end zone, but hadn't left the tackle box (*), and got called. That's literally the only time I've seen grounding get called on a ball thrown out of the back of the end zone.

As for the play last night, the rule book doesn't really define any exceptions for receiver-QB miscommunication. The actual definition:

EDIT: The officials may be given some leeway, but the referee throwing the flag is not going to know if the receiver ran the wrong route. It's not their job to know the Pats route trees. One could argue that the call was a bit ticky-tack, but the call is technically proper as per the rule book.

EDIT: (*): In that Seattle play, Brady couldn't leave the tackle box because the clock would have run down to zero, so he did what he had to do in a vain attempt to keep the drive alive. Just weird in that for whatever reason, officials let QB's throw out of the end zone all the time, except for that one.
Yep, that's always been my understanding, you have to look at where the receiver was when the ball was thrown and where it lands. In practice, the only one of these criteria that really matters is where it lands, right? If it lands in the vicinity of a receiver, it always going to be thrown in the receiver's direction virtually by definition. But the converse is not true. When the penalty was announced last night, after the conference, it was announced that the ball did not land near the receiver, and that was right.

I forgot about the Seattle game. Yeah, that one seemed inconsistent at the time. In the pocket, out of the pocket, you seem to get to throw it away out of the end zone.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
So, my understanding is that while the rule still keeps the name "intentional grounding," it was changed several years (and tweaked at least once since) to make it more objective and to add the requirement that you can throw the ball away if you get out of the tackle box and get past the line of scrimmage. (And clock it.) Prior to 1993, officials had to determine intent, but now, the rule is pretty much objective. The only subjective part is whether the QB is under duress and facing an imminent loss of yardage. There are squishy words in the rulebook, like "vicinity" that give officials continuing discretion, but my understanding is that IG is taught as an objective rule these days. I think it's part of a general overhaul in the NFL (that has coincided with a similar effort in the NHL) to attempt to make things less subjective. There are still plenty of subjective things in the rule book -- like whether a blow to the head is forceable -- but pretty much with every year the trend is toward less subjective judgment and more objective criteria. Debatable whether that's a good thing, I guess.
I don't mind if we go by either the "intent" of the rule or the "letter" of the rule. By *letter*, Brady did commit intentional grounding. By *intent*, no (or there's no way to know), as he threw it before the receiver broke and for all we know, the receiver simply ran the wrong route. It simply looked like any other QB/WR miscommunication.

But if we're going by the *letter* of the rule, then in no way did Butler commit the neutral zone infraction. Like, not actually even close. There is an official staring STRAIGHT down the line. This picture represents the most forward Butler got. This is as close to the neutral zone as he got.

Note that (1) there's a ref staring right down the line of scrimmage, so it doesn't matter what the camera angle is, the ref is looking right down the line, and (2) the LOS is at the 30 yard line and Butler's hand is a good foot, foot and a half short of it. In fact, I think it's Guy, but there's another Patriot that's FAR closer to the neutral zone than Butler is, and the flag isn't on him.

So if we're going by the *letter* of the rule, then in no way should Butler have been flagged for a neutral zone infraction. The point being, you (not talking really to you specifically...more to the NFL) cannot go by the *letter* of the rule when it comes to intentional grounding, but the *principle/spirit/intent* of the rule when it comes to neutral zone infraction.

Neutral zone infraction, by rule, requires the defensive player to, you know, enter the neutral zone. Butler quite objectively did not.
 

Attachments

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,273
AZ
I don't mind if we go by either the "intent" of the rule or the "letter" of the rule. By *letter*, Brady did commit intentional grounding. By *intent*, no (or there's no way to know), as he threw it before the receiver broke and for all we know, the receiver simply ran the wrong route. It simply looked like any other QB/WR miscommunication.

But if we're going by the *letter* of the rule, then in no way did Butler commit the neutral zone infraction. Like, not actually even close. There is an official staring STRAIGHT down the line. This picture represents the most forward Butler got. This is as close to the neutral zone as he got.

Note that (1) there's a ref staring right down the line of scrimmage, so it doesn't matter what the camera angle is, the ref is looking right down the line, and (2) the LOS is at the 30 yard line and Butler's hand is a good foot, foot and a half short of it. In fact, I think it's Guy, but there's another Patriot that's FAR closer to the neutral zone than Butler is, and the flag isn't on him.

So if we're going by the *letter* of the rule, then in no way should Butler have been flagged for a neutral zone infraction. The point being, you (not talking really to you specifically...more to the NFL) cannot go by the *letter* of the rule when it comes to intentional grounding, but the *principle/spirit/intent* of the rule when it comes to neutral zone infraction.

Neutral zone infraction, by rule, requires the defensive player to, you know, enter the neutral zone. Butler quite objectively did not.
I find the CFB explanation to be very unsatisfying too. The idea that a defender on the LOS sets the neutral zone by where he puts his hand down instead of where the rules define the neutral zone is not great. But I believe him fully when he says that this is the way that it is called and that this is understood. Every sport has a set of principles that it goes by to deal with the fact that some rules are really hard to administer and some if taken completely literally could be unsporting or make an official's job too hard. I mean, football would look pretty fucked up if every defender could line up 2 feet behind the neutral zone and simulate jumping forward to try to induce a false start by moving into the almost-but-not-quite neutral zone, and it would be very difficult to call. So, I accept that's why it is called the way that it was called. Sports are filled with these little nuances, though obviously replay is changing a lot of that. I expect that if false start/NZI were reviewable, they would have to get more objective or change the rule. But, at least for purposes of discussing last night, the explanation satisfies me that this was not an unfair call based on how the rule is administered.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,767
Hartford, CT
The Seattle call was bullshit because it flew in the face of how the rule is typically enforced for throws out the back of the end zone where the ball is spotted inside the RZ. Players try to play to how the rules are enforced, not just how they’re written (see also: holding, or the recent NFL obsession with illegal use of hands to the face).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I don't mind if we go by either the "intent" of the rule or the "letter" of the rule. By *letter*, Brady did commit intentional grounding. By *intent*, no (or there's no way to know), as he threw it before the receiver broke and for all we know, the receiver simply ran the wrong route. It simply looked like any other QB/WR miscommunication.

But if we're going by the *letter* of the rule, then in no way did Butler commit the neutral zone infraction. Like, not actually even close. There is an official staring STRAIGHT down the line. This picture represents the most forward Butler got. This is as close to the neutral zone as he got.

Note that (1) there's a ref staring right down the line of scrimmage, so it doesn't matter what the camera angle is, the ref is looking right down the line, and (2) the LOS is at the 30 yard line and Butler's hand is a good foot, foot and a half short of it. In fact, I think it's Guy, but there's another Patriot that's FAR closer to the neutral zone than Butler is, and the flag isn't on him.

So if we're going by the *letter* of the rule, then in no way should Butler have been flagged for a neutral zone infraction. The point being, you (not talking really to you specifically...more to the NFL) cannot go by the *letter* of the rule when it comes to intentional grounding, but the *principle/spirit/intent* of the rule when it comes to neutral zone infraction.

Neutral zone infraction, by rule, requires the defensive player to, you know, enter the neutral zone. Butler quite objectively did not.
I don't believe the NFL is going by "intent" in either penalty.

For intentional grounding, there are objective criteria, and Brady's pass qualified. I don't know how much leeway officials are given in terms of judging whether the call is the best use of a penalty flag in that situation.

Regarding the neutral zone infraction, I haven't seen the video, but I doubt the officials are calling "intent". It's possible they may have made a mistake because of Butler's jump. Note that the officials can call delay of game if "a defensive player aligned in a stationary position within one yard of the line of scrimmage makes quick and abrupt actions that are not part of normal defensive player movement and are an obvious attempt to cause an offensive player to foul". That's not what they called; just saying that the call is not as egregious as it's being made out to be.

Anyway, that call had little impact on the game. I have trouble blaming the officials given that the Pats D gave up a 53 yard rush on the very next play. Or for Calhoun or Hightower committing stupid offsides penalties that in one case changed a FG to a TD, and another that needlessly extended a Baltimore drive when the game was still close enough.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I find the CFB explanation to be very unsatisfying too. The idea that a defender on the LOS sets the neutral zone by where he puts his hand down instead of where the rules define the neutral zone is not great. But I believe him fully when he says that this is the way that it is called and that this is understood. Every sport has a set of principles that it goes by to deal with the fact that some rules are really hard to administer and some if taken completely literally could be unsporting or make an official's job too hard. I mean, football would look pretty fucked up if every defender could line up 2 feet behind the neutral zone and simulate jumping forward to try to induce a false start by moving into the almost-but-not-quite neutral zone, and it would be very difficult to call. So, I accept that's why it is called the way that it was called. Sports are filled with these little nuances, though obviously replay is changing a lot of that. I expect that if false start/NZI were reviewable, they would have to get more objective or change the rule. But, at least for purposes of discussing last night, the explanation satisfies me that this was not an unfair call based on how the rule is administered.
Well it used to be called that way. Defenders would rush at the line and then stop without a flag.

Maybe I’m old fashioned but when the rule three times specifically refers to entering the neutral zone as being the grounds for a penalty, it’s not ok to throw a flag on a guy who flinches and remains half a yard from the neutral zone. The neutral zone is a clear demarcation point and even then if the defender gets back before the offensive guy moves, it’s no penalty....which Butler did.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I don't believe the NFL is going by "intent" in either penalty.

For intentional grounding, there are objective criteria, and Brady's pass qualified. I don't know how much leeway officials are given in terms of judging whether the call is the best use of a penalty flag in that situation.

Regarding the neutral zone infraction, I haven't seen the video, but I doubt the officials are calling "intent". It's possible they may have made a mistake because of Butler's jump. Note that the officials can call delay of game if "a defensive player aligned in a stationary position within one yard of the line of scrimmage makes quick and abrupt actions that are not part of normal defensive player movement and are an obvious attempt to cause an offensive player to foul". That's not what they called; just saying that the call is not as egregious as it's being made out to be.

Anyway, that call had little impact on the game. I have trouble blaming the officials given that the Pats D gave up a 53 yard rush on the very next play. Or for Calhoun or Hightower committing stupid offsides penalties that in one case changed a FG to a TD, and another that needlessly extended a Baltimore drive when the game was still close enough.
Yes this conversation isn’t about blaming the officials for the loss. It is simply about the officiating.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Looking at that, I think the WR did a really good job getting in McCourty's way and letting him initiate contact rather than the other way around. Still probably worth a challenge given the situation but I don't think the Pats would have won.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
I think the chances of winning challenge on that OPI are very remote. Don't think that gets called live very often either.

Thought they missed the Butler call.

I also think the center gets away with that "twitch" more often than not. Very low risk, high reward play. They call a penalty on the offense and its still a chip shot.
Need to be disciplined on D there. No reason to jump.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
I'm actually curious what CFB rules thinks of the grounding call. He specifically stated that only the OPI was a close call in his opinion but it did seem to me that the grounding call was bad. It was clear there was a guy there and if he turned the other way it would have been a potentially catchable ball.
I thought the grounding was the clearest of the fouls in question in this thread, in fact, I looked for the flag as soon as I saw where the pass went and was surprised when the announcers didn't immediately know what the flag was for.

Criteria for a foul:
QB is still in the pocket. Referees typically use three lateral steps to define the pocket. If the QB has not taken three steps then he is probably in the pocket. This is probably why Brady gets more ING fouls than anyone else, he is less mobile in the pocket than other QBs who are more likely to be able to take a couple steps before slinging the ball downfield.
QB under duress. Basically does the QB get hit (or would he have gotten hit) just after throwing the ball.
No receiver in the area (generally pretty liberal as long as the receiver is along the line-of-sight of the pass)

There is no "intent" necessary despite the name (nor does the ball even need to hit the ground, you can have intentional grounding on an interception which you would generally only want to call if the defense also fouled before the interception since it would be otherwise declined)

I can tell you I've rarely had an ING foul where the offensive coach didn't say "X player was supposed to be there", even on plays where the QB throws the ball right at his feet. But it doesn't matter where he was supposed to be, it matters where he is. If you run option routes, then that is the risk you are willing to accept if you screw it up.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
I don't mind if we go by either the "intent" of the rule or the "letter" of the rule. By *letter*, Brady did commit intentional grounding. By *intent*, no (or there's no way to know), as he threw it before the receiver broke and for all we know, the receiver simply ran the wrong route. It simply looked like any other QB/WR miscommunication.

So if we're going by the *letter* of the rule, then in no way should Butler have been flagged for a neutral zone infraction. The point being, you (not talking really to you specifically...more to the NFL) cannot go by the *letter* of the rule when it comes to intentional grounding, but the *principle/spirit/intent* of the rule when it comes to neutral zone infraction.
These are good points about technical application of the written rule. When you get a group of officials talking about this it often sounds like lawyers talking about the technical interpretation of the law (in fact, many officials are also lawyers which is probably not a coincidence). The NCAA even uses law as an analogy in their rulebook, where the rulebook is analogous to the written law and the ARs (case plays in NFL) are the "supreme court rulings".

If you were to ask me, the most important thing is to call the rule the way the coaches, players, media, and fans (in order of importance) expect it to be called, regardless of what is written. Before replay, the "neighborhood play" in baseball was a perfect example of this. You don't want to be in the position of trying to explain why a very technical call that nobody expects was correct (you can ask some recent World Series umpires / Will Middlebrooks about that).

Then you go by intent of the rule. The intent of the DOF / NZI rule is that the defense can't jump to try and get the offense to false start. The NFL has a very liberal definition for who is "threatened" by the defense. The onus is on the defense to be legal (don't jump).
The intent of the ING rule is that the QB can't avoid a sack by throwing the ball where there is no receiver. A QB/WR miscommunication is a foul IF the quarterback is about to be tackled.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I believe Brady's complaint about the grounding call is that he felt Dorsett was held, which not only should have been a penalty but also caused the pass to be thrown to nowhere. Obviously, none of the officials saw a hold, and no-one has shown a reply that shows a hold on the play, so I'm guessing Brady was just trying to plead his case to the officials in the 0.1% chance that the flag would be overturned after the officials huddled up.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I thought the grounding was the clearest of the fouls in question in this thread, in fact, I looked for the flag as soon as I saw where the pass went and was surprised when the announcers didn't immediately know what the flag was for.

Criteria for a foul:
QB is still in the pocket. Referees typically use three lateral steps to define the pocket. If the QB has not taken three steps then he is probably in the pocket. This is probably why Brady gets more ING fouls than anyone else, he is less mobile in the pocket than other QBs who are more likely to be able to take a couple steps before slinging the ball downfield.
QB under duress. Basically does the QB get hit (or would he have gotten hit) just after throwing the ball.
No receiver in the area (generally pretty liberal as long as the receiver is along the line-of-sight of the pass)

There is no "intent" necessary despite the name (nor does the ball even need to hit the ground, you can have intentional grounding on an interception which you would generally only want to call if the defense also fouled before the interception since it would be otherwise declined)

I can tell you I've rarely had an ING foul where the offensive coach didn't say "X player was supposed to be there", even on plays where the QB throws the ball right at his feet. But it doesn't matter where he was supposed to be, it matters where he is. If you run option routes, then that is the risk you are willing to accept if you screw it up.
Thanks for the information, this all makes sense as does your related follow up reply.
I actually assume that Brady's intent was to get rid of the ball and save the sack, I figured the refs could use some judgement regarding what the receiver did but it makes sense to have firm guidelines on those calls.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
These are good points about technical application of the written rule. When you get a group of officials talking about this it often sounds like lawyers talking about the technical interpretation of the law (in fact, many officials are also lawyers which is probably not a coincidence). The NCAA even uses law as an analogy in their rulebook, where the rulebook is analogous to the written law and the ARs (case plays in NFL) are the "supreme court rulings".

If you were to ask me, the most important thing is to call the rule the way the coaches, players, media, and fans (in order of importance) expect it to be called, regardless of what is written. Before replay, the "neighborhood play" in baseball was a perfect example of this. You don't want to be in the position of trying to explain why a very technical call that nobody expects was correct (you can ask some recent World Series umpires / Will Middlebrooks about that).

Then you go by intent of the rule. The intent of the DOF / NZI rule is that the defense can't jump to try and get the offense to false start. The NFL has a very liberal definition for who is "threatened" by the defense. The onus is on the defense to be legal (don't jump).
The intent of the ING rule is that the QB can't avoid a sack by throwing the ball where there is no receiver. A QB/WR miscommunication is a foul IF the quarterback is about to be tackled.
I hear you and appreciate the thoughts. We have just both seen linebackers rush to the line and stop and there would be no penalty on them if an OL moved.

I am just having a hard time with the “the rulebook explicitly states three times that entry into the neutral zone is required for a flag but we don’t really mean that” thing. The neighborhood play in baseball was strictly a safety thing when base runners could slide in aggressively. Since THAT has been outlawed there is now no neighborhood play anymore. There’s no safety issue with NZI that I can see.

Never mind the fact that he also reset before the OL moved, which the rule also states as grounds for no penalty.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
2,371
... so I'm guessing Brady was just trying to plead his case to the officials in the 0.1% chance that the flag would be overturned after the officials huddled up.
Man in Zebra: "I can't afford to make exceptions. Once word leaks out that a referee has gone soft, players begin to disobey you, and then it's nothing but work, work, work, all the time. "
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
I hear you and appreciate the thoughts. We have just both seen linebackers rush to the line and stop and there would be no penalty on them if an OL moved.

I am just having a hard time with the “the rulebook explicitly states three times that entry into the neutral zone is required for a flag but we don’t really mean that” thing. The neighborhood play in baseball was strictly a safety thing when base runners could slide in aggressively. Since THAT has been outlawed there is now no neighborhood play anymore. There’s no safety issue with NZI that I can see.

Never mind the fact that he also reset before the OL moved, which the rule also states as grounds for no penalty.
This is true on linebackers, they are treated differently when rushing the line. If a linebacker is in a two point stance stationary on the line and then jumps, it's the same as any other lineman. If the defender does truly reset before the FST then there would be no foul, but it looked like the FST happened reasonably quickly before the defender had gotten all the way back.

And again, I want to emphasize how deceiving the camera angle up the line can be. The LJ who made the call is a good official, you may remember him as the official who ran in an immediately called Edelman's catch as complete in Super Bowl 51.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,238
It seems that in the last few years offenses have emphasized jumping when the d-lineman does to ensure the offside call. For the longest time, the o-line held their stances, the d-lineman got back before the snap and the play went on. (Or it was the proverbial "free play" if the ball was snapped while the d-lineman wasn't back to his side of the the LoS.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
This is true on linebackers, they are treated differently when rushing the line. If a linebacker is in a two point stance stationary on the line and then jumps, it's the same as any other lineman. If the defender does truly reset before the FST then there would be no foul, but it looked like the FST happened reasonably quickly before the defender had gotten all the way back.

And again, I want to emphasize how deceiving the camera angle up the line can be. The LJ who made the call is a good official, you may remember him as the official who ran in an immediately called Edelman's catch as complete in Super Bowl 51.
From your video, I slowed it frame by frame and I posted a still photo of the furthest point forward that Butler got (see post #212). The camera angle isn't deceptive here. You can see quite plainly that Butler doesn't even come close to the neutral zone. Guy is far closer to the neutral zone, and he never got called for lining up offsides.

So I guess I really don't understand why they called it other than that they simply blew it, which does happen from time to time. No question Butler flinches and moves forward like an inch or two. But he doesn't come close to the neutral zone. If it's a matter of the NFL not wanting players darting up to the line to cause a false start, well you've just agreed that linebackers and defensive backs can do that from a full sprint and stop just short of the neutral zone, and if the OL moves, that's a false start, not a neutral zone infraction. So if that's the intent of the rule, the NFL is pretty poor at managing consistency.

The rule is pretty clear: a defensive player must enter the neutral zone. Three times in the rule it says it. Butler did not enter it. Like, not close. He did flinch, and when he returned to his position, the OL jumped, the whistles blew, everyone started pointing, and the call was made against Butler.

Seems to me to be a pretty clear mistake on the refs part by intent and by rule. I just think they got it wrong. But if you say that's how they're supposed to call that...uh....ok I guess.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
I believe Brady's complaint about the grounding call is that he felt Dorsett was held, which not only should have been a penalty but also caused the pass to be thrown to nowhere. Obviously, none of the officials saw a hold, and no-one has shown a reply that shows a hold on the play, so I'm guessing Brady was just trying to plead his case to the officials in the 0.1% chance that the flag would be overturned after the officials huddled up.
Dorsett wasn't held so much as given a forearm shiv to the throat, well beyond 5 yards.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,698
Bow, NH
From your video, I slowed it frame by frame and I posted a still photo of the furthest point forward that Butler got (see post #212). The camera angle isn't deceptive here. You can see quite plainly that Butler doesn't even come close to the neutral zone. Guy is far closer to the neutral zone, and he never got called for lining up offsides.

So I guess I really don't understand why they called it other than that they simply blew it, which does happen from time to time. No question Butler flinches and moves forward like an inch or two. But he doesn't come close to the neutral zone. If it's a matter of the NFL not wanting players darting up to the line to cause a false start, well you've just agreed that linebackers and defensive backs can do that from a full sprint and stop just short of the neutral zone, and if the OL moves, that's a false start, not a neutral zone infraction. So if that's the intent of the rule, the NFL is pretty poor at managing consistency.

The rule is pretty clear: a defensive player must enter the neutral zone. Three times in the rule it says it. Butler did not enter it. Like, not close. He did flinch, and when he returned to his position, the OL jumped, the whistles blew, everyone started pointing, and the call was made against Butler.

Seems to me to be a pretty clear mistake on the refs part by intent and by rule. I just think they got it wrong. But if you say that's how they're supposed to call that...uh....ok I guess.
That may all be true, but the fact of the matter is that a defensive lineman should be watching the ball, and not jumping around due to the things he hears. This is all on Butler.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,157
I feel like we see many more neutral zone infractions than we used to. I feel like it used to be you had a lot of defensive offsides penalties, where it was a free play for the offense to see what the could do and choose to accept or decline the defensive offsides penalty. I feel like that is very rare these days. Maybe because the offense has been trained to simply jump as soon as the defense is over the line (or not in it, in this particular case :)
 

Bellhorn

Lumiere
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2006
2,328
Brighton, MA
It was a similarly bogus neutral zone infraction that gave the Chiefs an extra clock stoppage at the end of regulation in the AFCCG, leading to the Mahomes shot at the end zone that probably took a few years off my life.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
@CFB_Rules

Last night at 10:36 I posted this in the week 10 game thread:

“Minnesota just had this happen. First and goal from the Dallas one yard line. The Dallas DT flinches forward but doesn’t enter the neutral zone. The Viking moved and it was called a false start, not a neutral zone infraction.”

Virtually the same exact situation as the Butler play but they called a false start and nobody argued the point at all. Neither announcer said hey wait a second the DL moved first. Just ho hum normal false start penalty.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
@CFB_Rules

Last night at 10:36 I posted this in the week 10 game thread:

“Minnesota just had this happen. First and goal from the Dallas one yard line. The Dallas DT flinches forward but doesn’t enter the neutral zone. The Viking moved and it was called a false start, not a neutral zone infraction.”

Virtually the same exact situation as the Butler play but they called a false start and nobody argued the point at all. Neither announcer said hey wait a second the DL moved first. Just ho hum normal false start penalty.
Here's the play:

View: https://youtu.be/suIwp5rs2Yw


The offense is only protected from a false start if a defender enters the neutral zone directly in front or beside them. This defender is in the gap, so the only protected offensive players are those on either side of the gap. Since the player who moved is on the end, he gets no protection, and even if the defender was deep into the neutral zone any movement would result in a false start by rule
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Ok so this part of the rule "a defender enters the neutral zone prior to the snap, causing the offensive player(s) in close proximity (including a quarterback who is under center) to react (move) immediately to protect himself (themselves) against impending contact; officials are to blow their whistles immediately" - the "close proximity" is defined as being a player directly in front of or on either side of the gap of, the D player that flinches? Because in the play we're looking at now, he's only like two yards away.

And from the rule: "if the defender is in a gap, the two offensive players on either side of the gap are considered to be within close proximity (including a quarterback under center, if applicable)" you are correct.

Ok got it.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,492
Ok so this part of the rule "a defender enters the neutral zone prior to the snap, causing the offensive player(s) in close proximity (including a quarterback who is under center) to react (move) immediately to protect himself (themselves) against impending contact; officials are to blow their whistles immediately" - the "close proximity" is defined as being a player directly in front of or on either side of the gap of, the D player that flinches? Because in the play we're looking at now, he's only like two yards away.

And from the rule: "if the defender is in a gap, the two offensive players on either side of the gap are considered to be within close proximity (including a quarterback under center, if applicable)" you are correct.

Ok got it.
I don't know if it makes a difference, but there is a significant difference between the two plays in that the PATS DL got out of his stance (i.e., his hand left the ground) and then he switched hands to get back.

In the DAL game, the player's hands never left the ground.

Again I don't know if it technically means anything but to the lay person, it would seem to be a huge difference.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA_vw3nBLl8&feature=player_embedded
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
I don't know if it makes a difference, but there is a significant difference between the two plays in that the PATS DL got out of his stance (i.e., his hand left the ground) and then he switched hands to get back.

In the DAL game, the player's hands never left the ground.

Again I don't know if it technically means anything but to the lay person, it would seem to be a huge difference.
If one of the interior lineman would have moved, I'm certain the Dallas play would also have been an NZI.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
If one of the interior lineman would have moved, I'm certain the Dallas play would also have been an NZI.
So I guess my question is this: If they're gonna apply the rule "in principle" - as in, the intent of the rule, which is to prevent the D from causing false starts by twitching and jumping etc at the line of scrimmage, then why are they only doing it for players in "close proximity" (as the NFL rule book defines it). In other words, if a DL is lined up and jumps (even w/o going into the NZ), and an OL two players away sees it and moves, sorry, no NZI, but rather false start. What I'm saying is that the NFL isn't officiating by the actual rule when it comes to what constitutes NZI (i.e., actually entering the NZ), but rather are going by the intent of the rule, and yet at the same time going by the strict letter of the rule when it comes to "close proximity" of the guy who flinches.

Makes no sense. Either officiate by the rule or by the intent.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
So I guess my question is this: If they're gonna apply the rule "in principle" - as in, the intent of the rule, which is to prevent the D from causing false starts by twitching and jumping etc at the line of scrimmage, then why are they only doing it for players in "close proximity" (as the NFL rule book defines it). In other words, if a DL is lined up and jumps (even w/o going into the NZ), and an OL two players away sees it and moves, sorry, no NZI, but rather false start. What I'm saying is that the NFL isn't officiating by the actual rule when it comes to what constitutes NZI (i.e., actually entering the NZ), but rather are going by the intent of the rule, and yet at the same time going by the strict letter of the rule when it comes to "close proximity" of the guy who flinches.

Makes no sense. Either officiate by the rule or by the intent.
Everything the NFL does is predicated around the camera. Everything that can be objectively seen by the camera is called that way. 99% of NZIs cannot be judged by the camera when it is tight because there is very rarely a true down the line shot, so the officials fall back on philosophy.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Everything the NFL does is predicated around the camera. Everything that can be objectively seen by the camera is called that way. 99% of NZIs cannot be judged by the camera when it is tight because there is very rarely a true down the line shot, so the officials fall back on philosophy.
Well that doesn't make any sense to me because regardless of a camera...there's an official looking RIGHT DOWN THE LINE. When Dee Ford lined up offside in last year's AFCCG, the only camera angle we got was very skewed, but it was easy for the official to call because he was staring right down the line of scrimmage. He wasn't thinking "What might the camera angle be on this?" He saw Ford lined up offside, the ball was snapped, and he immediately threw the flag.

Put it this way: if the official staring right down the LOS, *whose job it is to make these calls* isn't calling the calls as they actually are, and according to the actual NFL rule book, but is only thinking about what the views the network cameras might be showing, then there's a major F-ing problem with how the NFL officiates games.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,492
So I guess my question is this: If they're gonna apply the rule "in principle" - as in, the intent of the rule, which is to prevent the D from causing false starts by twitching and jumping etc at the line of scrimmage, then why are they only doing it for players in "close proximity" (as the NFL rule book defines it). In other words, if a DL is lined up and jumps (even w/o going into the NZ), and an OL two players away sees it and moves, sorry, no NZI, but rather false start. What I'm saying is that the NFL isn't officiating by the actual rule when it comes to what constitutes NZI (i.e., actually entering the NZ), but rather are going by the intent of the rule, and yet at the same time going by the strict letter of the rule when it comes to "close proximity" of the guy who flinches.

Makes no sense. Either officiate by the rule or by the intent.
Isn't the theory that if the OL across from the DL don't move, then it's pretty apparent that the false start down the line wasn't (or shouldn't have been) caused by that DL?

It's hard to apply bright line rules in any endeavor, even football. If the refs took your interpretation of the rule, how many DL would start 1/2 yard off the ball and then try to get the DL to flinch.