Please explain the Safety Call

[realtick]

i said the exact same thing when i saw it live...


why would it still be a safety for throwing to an ineligible receiver?

"Offensive team commits a foul and spot of enforcement is behind its own goal line....it's a safety."

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

That was clearly not a safety IMO.

 

[JBS]

"Offensive team commits a foul and spot of enforcement is behind its own goal line....it's a safety."

Not saying you are wrong...but the offensive lineman didn't commit the penalty behind his own goal line

 

[realtick]

Not saying you are wrong...but the offensive lineman didn't commit the penalty behind his own goal line

Which play are we talking about?

I assumed you were speaking about the play AdamJT was referencing about Mark Sanchez.

If it was, and assuming Adam is right in the way he broke down the play (I don't recall it), then the actual call was that Sanchez's forward progress was deemed stopped in the endzone = safety. Adam just commented that had they not made that call it would have still ended up as a safety anyways because of the ineligible receiver. But whether that's accurate or not is a moot point because the original call by the refs (forward progress stopped in endzone).

 

[JBS]

Which play are we talking about?

I assumed you were speaking about the play AdamJT was referencing about Mark Sanchez.

Yes, that one. I don't think the rule you pulled up is the correct one, but I'm not certain. Seems more of like a holding type call in the EZ. The OL in this scenario caugh a pass beyond the goal line.Sanchez was in the EZ, but it's not a spot foul, I don't think.

 

[Ring Leader]

The call I just don't get is last weekend when the Eagles player fumbled at the pylon and the ball went out of bounds, the Cowboys got possession at the 20. I don't see the logic of that rule at all. Why would the Cowboys gain possession?

When you fumble a ball through the endzone it's a touchback. The pylon is part of the endzone. The Eagle player lost controll and fumbled the ball prior to the ball hitting the pylon and continuing to go out of bounds. Touchback.

 

[kmd24]

Forward progress does not factor into this play because at no time was he under the control of defender, nor was his forward momentum (or in any direction for that matter) was stopped. He was contacted by a defender, not tackled, controlled and brought to the ground.

Forward progress doesn't require the defender to be in control. There is no example in the casebook that specifically addresses the situation in question. The cases that are mentioned, however, would have either given us the ball at the spot of contact or given us a replay of the down under the inadvertent whistle rules.

If you can cite a casebook example or explicit rule that addresses this situation, I'd love to see it. Here are the ones that appear to be most relevant to me:

Second-and-10 on A30. Offensive End A1 catches a legal forward pass on the A40 where he is stopped by B1, but A1 breaks away and goes back to the A38 in an attempt to break loose. He is tackled on the A38 by B2.
Ruling: A’s ball third-and-two on A38. No forward progress is given as he was not stopped. He broke away before he was downed.

Note that in this case, the defender was required to tackle A1 for him to be ruled down.

A.R. 7.33 NOT DOWN BY CONTACT—LEGAL ADVANCE
First-and-10 on B30. On a backward pass, A1 catches the ball and is knocked off balance by B2 on the B36. A1 regains his balance, runs to the B32, stumbles to one knee, and then falls to the ground on the B28. A1 then gets up and scores. Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. (7-4-1-e)

Note that in this case, the contact was ruled not to be the cause of the player going to the ground.

Second-and-10 on A30. Runner A2 fumbles a handoff from Quarterback A1 on the A25. The ball is on the A22 when the Referee inadvertently blows his whistle. Ruling: A’s ball second-and-10 on A30 (replay).

From where I sit, there are only two possible rulings on this play. 1) Down by contact where contact was initiated or 2) replay the down because of an inadvertent whistle (i.e., Romo was not down because he went into the endzone by his own impetus).

Mike Periera said it was clearly a safety and forward progress was not a consideration, but I don't see how that could be gleaned from the rulebook, which doesn't even address the definition of forward progress.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

I agree with you.

 

[realtick]

Forward progress doesn't require the defender to be in control. There is no example in the casebook that specifically addresses the situation in question. The cases that are mentioned, however, would have either given us the ball at the spot of contact or given us a replay of the down under the inadvertent whistle rules.

"Forward progress" in invoked whenever a ballcarrier's forward movement has been stifled either through being knocked immediately to the ground, stacked up and stuffed, and or driven backwards.

It is never ever called when a player simply contacted or tripped up but can still move under his own volition. Never. That's exactly what happened on the Romo play.

Second-and-10 on A30. Offensive End A1 catches a legal forward pass on the A40 where he is stopped by B1, but A1 breaks away and goes back to the A38 in an attempt to break loose. He is tackled on the A38 by B2. Ruling: A’s ball third-and-two on A38. No forward progress is given as he was not stopped. He broke away before he was downed.

A1 obviously wasn't "stopped" to an extent where the ref would have blown the whistle dead. He was able to break free and under HIS OWN volition, he went backwards and was tackled.

Of all your examples, this has the most relevance to Romo's play. Even greater, Romo wasn't "stopped," he was contacted by the defender, and he went backwards trying to escape under his own volition, never regaining his balance and was subsequently rendered downed by the initial contact.

A.R. 7.33 NOT DOWN BY CONTACT—LEGAL ADVANCE
First-and-10 on B30. On a backward pass, A1 catches the ball and is knocked off balance by B2 on the B36. A1 regains his balance, runs to the B32, stumbles to one knee, and then falls to the ground on the B28. A1 then gets up and scores. Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. (7-4-1-e)

....and notice the runner "regains his balance" which reestablishes himself as a runner and nullifies the contact made on the previous tackle attempt. Despite losing his balance again, even going to one knee, he is a free runner that needs to be tackled again.

In relation to Romo's play, he never regained his balance after the initial contact, and thus never had to be retouched while he was down in the endzone.

Here are the only ways the Romo play could not have been called a safety:

1) A Giants defender wraps up Romo outside of the endzone and flings him, bringing him down in the endzone. Forward progress would be called.

2) A Giants defender whiffs on making contact with Romo, but in his efforts to escape the pressure, Romo falls down in the endzone, but gets up and gets rid of the ball.

3) A Giants defender makes contact with Romo. Romo stumbles but regains his balance and rids himself of the ball.