Please explain the Safety Call

[superonyx]

I just cant seem to understand how the safety on Romo was a safety.

If the referees were saying it was the defender than knocked him down then would forward progress have to put him on the 2-3 yard line?

If a runner get to the 2 yard line and then gets knocked back into the end zone I have never seen it get called a safety.

If they do not give him forward progress then dont they have to let the play resume because then they are saying the defended didnt knock him down.

I just cant see how that play should have been ruled a safety. It seems their are only 2 choices. Either the defender knocked him back into the end zone and forward progress puts the ball at the 2-3 yard line. Or he fell on his own and should have been allowed to get back up.


And please dont hijack this thread with anything about blaming the refs or our defense sucking or anything like that.
I am really curious as to the rule that eliminates forward progress in that situation. A defender cant pick someone up and carry or throw them back 5 yards and the ball be marked down where they land.

 

[DallasCowboysRule!]

From what I understand Romo was still trying to make a play so you couldn't really call him down. There was still a chance that Romo would regain his balance and chuck it down field as we've seen him do so many times before. I think it was a safety.

 

[Yeagermeister]

He was touched but didn't go down until he was in the endzone

 

[Derinyar]

The reason you don't understand it is because it was a blown call. JPP hits Romo. Romo loses his balance and puts a hand down, reestablishing his position as a runner. He puts the other hand down, which means he still isn't down, this was IIRC when they blew the whistle.

The officiating crew last night was horrible. They blew multiple calls. This was just the biggest of them and should honestly cost them jobs.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Norm is saying this exact thing right now, that the play was either live or it should've been forward progress at the 1.

 

[speedkilz88]

It was not a safety, the refs screwed it up. I just don't understand why Garrett didn't challenge it.

 

[EPL0c0]

I think it was just one of 2-3 really bad calls Dallas was hit with last night

 

[Chocolate Lab]

It was not a safety, the refs screwed it up. I just don't understand why Garrett didn't challenge it.

The Ticket also asks why it wasn't automatically reviewed since it was a scoring play.

But it's true that nobody from our team seemed to argue it.

 

[Aikmaniac]

I kept thinking his forward progress kept him at the 1. JPP slung him back, he lost his balance and fell.

If the reasoning was that he regained status as a runner, it would mean he was not down and could make a play.

 

[sacase]

That safety, the Newman Holding Call, the Facemask on Felix, just to name a few of the horribly blown calls and obvious ones also.

 

[Yeagermeister]

That safety, the Newman Holding Call, the Facemask on Felix, just to name a few of the horribly blown calls and obvious ones also.

At least they got the grounding call right :

 

[Plankton]

The Ticket also asks why it wasn't automatically reviewed since it was a scoring play.

But it's true that nobody from our team seemed to argue it.

It's no different than a player making a catch for a first down, then running backward and losing the first down. Romo went backward to steady himself to make the play, and went down. It was a safety - not a bad call in the least.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

It's no different than a player making a catch for a first down, then running backward and losing the first down. Romo went backward to steady himself to make the play, and went down. It was a safety - not a bad call in the least.

But if he runs backwards under his own power, he has to be touched down, which Romo never was.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Doesn't matter either way. So we lose by 1 instead of 3.

 

[Derinyar]

But if he runs backwards under his own power, he has to be touched down, which Romo never was.

Exactly. The hand down reestablishes him as a runner. The officials sucked last night as everyone should be ready to expect.

The problem is I'm not sure that is a reviewable call, and even if it is they can't actually fix the problem. The problem is they called a play dead when a player was never successfully tackled by the defense and there was no good resolution to that play, because putting the ball at the 1 yard line wasn't an appropriate fix either as Romo had no one else near him and wide open spaces to move if he felt like it.

Officials seem to be too fast to the whistle at times and too slow at others. I just want to see consistency, even if its bad in all facets. I think officials impact the game with players not knowing how you can play from down to down.

 

[peplaw06]

It's no different than a player making a catch for a first down, then running backward and losing the first down. Romo went backward to steady himself to make the play, and went down. It was a safety - not a bad call in the least.

Are you talking about running backward on their own power, or when hit by a defender? Two completely different scenarios. In one, the player gives up the yardage going backwards, in the other, forward progress is stopped by the defender.

That's what the whole forward progress rule is about. If JPP had grabbed Romo by the jersey and slung him into the end zone, it would have been forward progress outside the end zone. Should have been the same here.

 

[cowboyjoe]

This is the clincher, by NFL Rules read this, and i remember numerous times we knocked a qb or rb back into endzone and didnt get called safety, but this time was, read NFL rule. this is the problem interpertation of NFL by refs are all different, there is no complete unision decision

Here is NFL Rule




Digest of Rules Main


Safety

The important factor in a safety is impetus. Two points are scored for the opposing team when the ball is dead on or behind a team’s own goal line if the impetus came from a player on that team.

Examples of Safety:


(a) Blocked punt goes out of kicking team’s end zone. Impetus was provided by punting team. The block only changes direction of ball, not impetus.

(b) Ball carrier retreats from field of play into his own end zone and is downed. Ball carrier provides impetus.

(c) Offensive team commits a foul and spot of enforcement is behind its own goal line.

(d) Player on receiving team muffs punt and, trying to get ball, forces or illegally kicks (creating new impetus) it into end zone where it goes out of the end zone or is recovered by a member of the receiving team in the end zone.

Examples of Non-Safety:


(a) Player intercepts a pass with both feet inbounds in the field of play and his momentum carries him into his own end zone. Ball is put in play at spot of interception.

(b) Player intercepts a pass in his own end zone and is downed in the end zone, even after recovering in the end zone. Impetus came from passing team, not from defense. (Touchback)

(c) Player passes from behind his own goal line. Opponent bats down ball in end zone. (Incomplete pass)

Now read rule on intentional grounding
This stinks too;
we should have had 2 intentional grounding, not one





Digest of Rules Main


Intentional Grounding of Forward Pass

Intentional grounding of a forward pass is a foul: loss of down and 10 yards from previous spot if passer is in the field of play or loss of down at the spot of the foul if it occurs more than 10 yards behind the line or safety if passer is in his own end zone when ball is released.

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

Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).

 

[Longboysfan]

At least they got the grounding call right :

After 90,000 and the jumbo tron showed it again....

they would have passed on that also.

 

[BaybeeJay]

Doesn't matter either way. So we lose by 1 instead of 3.

No, would have gone into OT if everything else played out the same. Giants wouldn't have gone for 2.

 

[CooterBrown]

What differnce does it make? It just means the Giants would have overcome a 14 point deficit instead of a 12 point deficit. As the game ended, did anybody here believe the defense could have kept the Giants from scoring in overtime? I didn't. The only hope we would have had would have been that it was tied and we got the ball and scored first.