The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

We would never get the call. Or, if we did, it would be overturned on review.

That does bring up an interesting question: If the pass that Plummer tucked was an incomplete pass, why was it not intentional grounding? Clearly, he was still inside the tackle box.

If he was being hit, it wouldn't be (as happened with Brady in the playoffs) But he was not touched by anybody until Jimoh hit him...

They said they cannot factor "intent" when it comes to the tuck rule when asked on Total Access.
I'm confused.

I think they should. esp. if you can get called for intentional grounding.

Punu wrote:They said they cannot factor "intent" when it comes to the tuck rule when asked on Total Access.
I'm confused.

I think they should. esp. if you can get called for intentional grounding.

Was this segment specifically about our last game? If so did that guy say that it was a good or bad call?

He seemed unsure thats for sure. No poker face at all

redskincity wrote:He seemed unsure thats for sure. No poker face at all

Judging by your response Im going to assume he was speaking on our specific game. Usually that game backs his people but I guess he can't in this one.

This is like the third time he seemed to get pissed with Rich Eisten.

I was really surprised to see the NFL let the Head of officiating get up there and explain his peoples mistakes each and every week.

You got to love the NFL Network.

Is there any way to find out if the league sent us a letter of apology, which they do from time to time when a mistake is made?


Not that it'd make everything all better, but I'm just curious to know.

I thought that the letter is sent out on Wednesdays. I'm not certain though.

The NFL Network's Total Access invites the head of the referees in each week to talk about controversial calls. Yesterday the first one reviewed was the Tuck call.

He was definately not uncertain about it. He said the way the rule is written, once the arm is in motion, it is considered in motion until the ball is tucked back into the body.

Rich asked him why don't they take into account what the intent of the QB was? And the referee said unequivocably that they cannot factor in intent.

Nobody brought up intentional grounding. I wrote the following email total access today but don't expect any response or action because of it:

I'm a Skins fan and still reeling from the Denver loss. I watched with interest the explanation of the tuck rule by the head of the NFL referees yesterday. My question is this: If the tucked pass is an incomplete pass, why was it not intentional grounding? It was essentially ruled an incomplete pass within the tackle box.

Tom Brady had been hit, dislodging the ball as he tucked it. That's the equivalent of a quarterback being hit as he throws. In that case, it is just an incompletion because there was contact.

But Plummer was untouched. He threw the ball into the ground in the tackle box.

The only explanation I can think of is that the referees are inferring intent, i.e. that he didn't mean to throw the ball away to avoid a sack. But the head of referees said on Wednesday that they can't factor intent in their decisions.

Seems like a contradiction to me. Of course, it probably wouldn't have helped the Skins anyway, because Denver was already kicking out of their own end zone...

So can someone explain to me the reason why this rule was made? If its been explained earlier than just tell me where to look.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:So can someone explain to me the reason why this rule was made? If its been explained earlier than just tell me where to look.

On Sirius NFL Radio this morning, they were saying supposedly it's to make it easier on the refs. They did say that since they called it a safety on the field, it sure didn't seem to be easier to call. I believe this was on The Openning Drive with Bob Papa and Dan Reeves.

Was this segment specifically about our last game? If so did that guy say that it was a good or bad call?

Naw it was about all the questionable calls on sunday. Ours was a big one. Rich interviews the head of officiating. The guy will never disagree with his crew but you could tell by the way he attempted to justify the call that it was crap. He just kept on saying that they cannot rule on "intent". I'll watch again and quote him if I can catch it.

Punu wrote:

Was this segment specifically about our last game? If so did that guy say that it was a good or bad call?

Naw it was about all the questionable calls on sunday. Ours was a big one. Rich interviews the head of officiating. The guy will never disagree with his crew but you could tell by the way he attempted to justify the call that it was crap. He just kept on saying that they cannot rule on "intent". I'll watch again and quote him if I can catch it.

You hit a good point. I was thinking the same thing when I made my last point and thats this guy will never disagree with his people. In a way thats understable because that takes place all over, you dont want to create division or step on toes. That being said it negates the purpose of that segment if nothing is ever going to be wrong.

I have two follow up questions:
1. If indeed, no intent can be inferred, then why wasn't intentional grounding called on the QB? He was inside the tackle box, and threw a pass to no valid receiver behind the line of scrimmage. If you cannot infer intent, then you must rule that IG.
2. Since the "pass" traveled backwards, why was it not ruled a fumbled lateral, which Plummer recovered in the end zone, and was tackled by Jimoh for a safety?

JSPB22 wrote:I have two follow up questions:
1. If indeed, no intent can be inferred, then why wasn't intentional grounding called on the QB? He was inside the tackle box, and threw a pass to no valid receiver behind the line of scrimmage. If you cannot infer intent, then you must rule that IG.
2. Since the "pass" traveled backwards, why was it not ruled a fumbled lateral, which Plummer recovered in the end zone, and was tackled by Jimoh for a safety?

Because of the tuck rule, if a quarterback fails to tuck, it's an incomplete pass. "Intent" is not taken into account for the tuck rule only. With intentional grounding, you can (and must) infer intent. The intent is to avoid a sack. Obviously, throwing the ball at your feet between the tackles is not intentional grounding if your intent is to stop the clock.

As for the second question, at what point does it become a forward pass? His arm was moving forward. If a quarterback throws a ball that goes marginally forward for a split second before hitting another part of his body and going backward, isn't this still a forward pass? I don't have the play in question on tape. Someone would have to check this...

Will

The ball went backwards as it left his hand. It did not hit his leg or foot or anything else but the ground.

wbbradb wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I have two follow up questions:
1. If indeed, no intent can be inferred, then why wasn't intentional grounding called on the QB? He was inside the tackle box, and threw a pass to no valid receiver behind the line of scrimmage. If you cannot infer intent, then you must rule that IG.
2. Since the "pass" traveled backwards, why was it not ruled a fumbled lateral, which Plummer recovered in the end zone, and was tackled by Jimoh for a safety?

Because of the tuck rule, if a quarterback fails to tuck, it's an incomplete pass. "Intent" is not taken into account for the tuck rule only. With intentional grounding, you can (and must) infer intent. The intent is to avoid a sack. Obviously, throwing the ball at your feet between the tackles is not intentional grounding if your intent is to stop the clock.

As for the second question, at what point does it become a forward pass? His arm was moving forward. If a quarterback throws a ball that goes marginally forward for a split second before hitting another part of his body and going backward, isn't this still a forward pass? I don't have the play in question on tape. Someone would have to check this...

Will

Watch the play again, and then we'll talk.
http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... ht=#192359

JSPB22 wrote: Watch the play again, and then we'll talk.
http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... ht=#192359

Ok, yes, you're right--it CLEARLY goes backwards, no question. But in the definition of a forward pass, the rules state that "any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass." So if my hand moves forward and the ball comes out backwards...? That can't be ruled a forward pass, can it?

wbbradb wrote:

JSPB22 wrote: Watch the play again, and then we'll talk.
http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... ht=#192359

Ok, yes, you're right--it CLEARLY goes backwards, no question. But in the definition of a forward pass, the rules state that "any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass." So if my hand moves forward and the ball comes out backwards...? That can't be ruled a forward pass, can it?

My point exactly. Besides, his hand had ceased it's forward motion and was actually moving away from the line of scrimmage when he dropped the ball. I think the tuck rule states that the pass is just incomplete, not necessarily forward.