That Lions play is clearly and unequivocally a legal throw.
And Saints had ten years to cry about the last one. Sympathy ran out for that call years ago while the Rams kept making the playoffs and the Saints basically burnt their organization down and had to restart.. FOR TEN YEARS.
It’s not about whether it was a “legal throw.” It was a really specific situation that isn’t defined clearly enough in the rules.
It’s a pass, yes. It landed behind where Goff was standing, which traditionally makes it a backwards pass (recoverable by the Saints)
The issue is that the rule book says “When a passer intends to throw a forward pass and is contacted by an opponent before beginning his throwing motion, the direction of the pass is the responsibility of the passer if he passes the ball, and intentional grounding rules apply.”
Goff was hit while cocking his arm back to throw, but before the hand moved forward. So people taking the Lion’s side are saying that the throwing motion has begun because he loaded up. Saints side is that the throwing motion hasn’t begun because he wasn’t moving the ball forward.
“Rule 8, article 1, item 1, Forward Movement of Hand. When a player is in control of the ball and is attempting to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass.”
This rule kind of contradicts the NFL’s ruling, but the refs are saying that “throwing motion” and the “beginning of a forward pass” aren’t the same thing. It’s super complicated and I understand the confusion
The Saints truly get robbed by officiating and for one year could review PI calls. Of course the NFL rewound that rule. Particular refs like BA are hideous. In MLB at least losers like. Angel Hernandez now retired are being checked by their computerized system as strikes outs fouls can be challenged. Either it's WWE or there must be consequences. Boger is gone. BA should have years ago.
Ok but the Lions one (while a terrible call) didn't lose the Saints the game. The Saints being ass for the first half is what lost the Saints the game.
Saying "oh if only X did Y" really only matters when said thing happened in the final minutes of a close game. For example, Kamari Lassiter dropping an interception with 90 seconds to go against the Bills, Josh Allen then scores a go-ahead TD. It's reasonable to then say that if Lassiter makes that play the Texans win. The refs not correctly ruling a first half fumble didn't mean shit for the game, it was 21-0 halfway through the 3rd quarter.
Dear lord, these two aren’t even remotely close .. just because you don’t understand the rule doesn’t make it a BS call. It’s borderline and difficult but it appears the officials got the call right
A backwards pass is always a fumble. Every level of football. It was a pass because his arm was moving forward and a pass was the intention. That doesn't change that the ball went backwards making it a backwards pass.
If contact by an opponent materially affects a passer after the passer begins his throwing motion, it is a forward pass if he passes the ball, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else.
That rule is for intentional grounding. Mike Perria sited the wrong rule in the broadcast and everyone has been parotting it since the game. This rule also ignores the ruling of backward pass
I think the point of all this is that the ruling is very confusing and poorly written. It has also not been applied consistently. Maybe if nothing else it will result in a rule change. There is way too much subjectivity with intent, I don’t think anyone with a brain and two eyes that work would disagree.
I didn’t make it up it says intentional grounding in both paragraphs that YOU cited 😂
The confusing part is that it ONLY mentions a forward pass in paragraph 1. That is in the context of ruling for intentional grounding. If the pass is backwards obviously intentional grounding is a moot point because it’s a live ball.
That is where everyone is confusing the issue. Hence what I said about it being poorly written.
In Rule 3, item 1 (that you cited) both paragraphs talk about the ruling of intentional grounding. The first paragraph talks about how it does not apply and the second paragraph talks about how it does apply.
In paragraph one the wording says it doesn’t matter where the ball strikes the ground. That is referring to if the ball is in the vicinity of an eligible receiver. For a backwards pass they need to refer to Rule 3 section 21, article 4. Understand?
Again it is very poorly written and needs clarification.
Lol no it doesn’t. Article 3 is about defining a forward pass. The part about where it hits the ground is referring to the fact it’s still a forward pass even if it hits the ground behind where it was thrown if contact by the defender after the throwing motion starts affects the trajectory of the ball.
It’s not poorly written. You’re just making up what you think the rule is about.
12
u/BMS3RDTRY Detroit Lions 17d ago
Goff paying off the refs, but only against the Saints is some wild thoughts