News
Cowboys desperation pass would have been intentional grounding, but here’s why it wouldn’t be a safety
Dak Prescott avoids intentional grounding in the end zone in an unusual way
Editor’s note: This post has been significantly updated from the original to reflect new sourcing that provides a better interpretation of the play. Everything that appears after the video was added Tuesday, Sept. 24.
By all reasonable interpretations of the rulebook, Dak Prescott’s wild pass to avoid a sack in the end zone is a safety.
On the play, Prescott was about to be tackled in the end zone when he threw a desperation pass to offensive tackle Tyron Smith, who caught the ball. There was no eligible receiver in the area. Referee Ron Torbert announced a penalty on Smith for being an ineligible player who touched the pass, but no foul on Prescott for intentional grounding. An intentional grounding call in the end zone is a safety by rule. The illegal touching of the pass behind the line of scrimmage but not in the end zone is not a safety and is enforced from the previous spot (five yards, or half-distance in this case) and repeat 3rd down. The Ravens declined, which means they take the result of the play. UPDATE 9/23: We originally stated the result of the play was a 0-yard pass, as it was recorded in the gamebook, but Smith was downed at the 4. The ball should have been spotted at the 4 and not the 7, because this converted to a legal catch by declining the penalty. Therefore, Smith should have a -3 yard reception, and the ensuing down would have been 4th & 13 from the 4.
There is no casebook entry that reasonably replicates this play, and we originally reported with a quote from a former official, who said, “you can’t have grounding when the pass was caught.”
However, on Tuesday, two league sources have stated that this play would have been intentional grounding if this was a pass. Wait, “if this was a pass”?
Our sources said that the officiating department has determined Prescott was not in control the ball when his hand is moving forward. As soon as he stretches out his hand forward, he has already started to lose his grip on the ball. The standard is not when the ball separates from his hand, but anything that demonstrates the ball is slipping. In this case, it’s not a still frame that determines the fumble, it’s the totality of the motion.
And the weird thing is, the Cowboys still avoid the safety. So let’s step through this in an alternate scenario:
If the call on the field was a pass, there should have been fouls for both intentional grounding and illegal touching of a pass. The Ravens would have accepted the intentional grounding penalty, because that one would make it a safety. Since it would then be a scoring play, it would be subject to a replay review, and in that review, they would have reversed it to the fumble with a legal recovery by the offensive lineman, picked up flags for both passing fouls, and negated the safety.
As it happened in on Sunday, the spot of the ball was off, because it should have been at the 4-yard line and not the 7. Replay assist could have intervened, but it appears that there was confusion in the replay booth over the ruling, and how a declined illegal pass converts the play into a valid completion.
As for replay assist not intervening on the fumble, because it is too tight to make an instant judgment on, such as the knee being down, it cannot be addressed in a replay assist. It can only be reversed by a coach’s challenge — or a booth review if ruled a safety on the field. General rule of thumb is if the replay official has to shuttle the video back and forth, there’s an analysis being done that is out of scope of the replay assist function.
Quirky Research has a list of linemen who, while in the game as an ineligible player, racked up offensive skill-player stats. Even though the play would have been changed to a fumble, this was ruled on the field to be a completed pass, and the statistics will reflect that.
Post a comment using Wordpress.com, Twitter, Facebook, or Google account:
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Anonymous
September 22, 2024 at 6:48 pm
This would be ING in NCAA. Another rule difference here.
Anonymous
September 22, 2024 at 6:56 pm
You said the Cardinals declined. It was the Ravens.
Readtherule
September 23, 2024 at 1:50 am
Section 2, Article 1 clearly states that intentional grounding occurs when the passer throws a forward pass with no realistic chance of completion. The rule goes on to clearly define a realistic chance of completion as a pass that is thrown in the direction of, and lands, in the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver. So the pass has to touch the ground to have had a realistic chance of completion. But there is nothing in the rule that says the ball must touch the ground to be intentional grounding.
David Russel
September 23, 2024 at 8:12 am
Why was the ball placed back at the original line of scrimmage for the 4th down play? Smith caught the ball and was tackled for a loss of 3 yards and the Ravens declined the penalty.
Anonymous
September 23, 2024 at 11:13 am
@READTHERULE – “lands” is the key word. The ball didn’t land, it was caught (illegally).
A strange loophole in the rules that should probably be changed, but it looks like the refs called it right.
Anonymous
September 23, 2024 at 11:54 am
@ANONYMOUS
Read it again: “ARTICLE 1. 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.” “lands” is in a section that obviously doesn’t apply. By your tortured reading, it’d be okay to pass the ball to a sidelined player . . . or a coach, cheerleader, or mascot . . . as long as the ball doesn’t hit the ground. Ridiculous.
ANONYMOUS
September 24, 2024 at 6:12 am
Your last example doesn’t work because as soon as the ball goes out of bounds, even in the air, it is dead.
Anonymous
September 24, 2024 at 4:02 pm
Think this needs the updates removed and reverted back to the original article. Harbaugh says that Torbert told him it wasn’t called because it was caught by a lineman, like this article originally had.
https://twitter.com/jeffzrebiec/status/1838286589392490539?s=46&t=ZRA6OkGpBtfwYOaKDOHnqw
Anonymous
September 24, 2024 at 4:06 pm
I think you were right the first time
https://twitter.com/jeffzrebiec/status/1838286589392490539?s=46&t=ZRA6OkGpBtfwYOaKDOHnqw
Anonymous
September 24, 2024 at 5:42 pm
The ruling on the field was a forward pass. In that scenario, there should have been two flags – intentional grounding and illegal touching. The fact that only one penalty was called was an error. Period.
Two days later, the officiating department suggests that it’s all good because if they’d reviewed it (which they didn’t), they would have said it’s a fumble. The suggestion is that the QB was not in control of the football when he initially started to move his hand forward. They also say it is not a still frame analysis, but rather the totality of the motion that matters. The problem is, no matter whether you go frame by frame or you look at the totality of the motion, the QB had control, tried to throw it forward, and lost control in the process of doing so, not before he started to do so.
This was not a classic pocket pass where the QB cocked his arm back and then started to move it forward. He had been tackled and was simply trying to shovel the ball forward. His hand is moving forward when he still has two hands on the ball. He removes his bottom hand and continues to move forward, still in control of the ball, then he begins to lose control of the ball, and then finally the ball pops out of his hand.
Only a highly tortured analysis (and certainly not an analysis of the totality of the motion) could conclude that this deliberate and successful attempt to throw the ball away was neither a pass nor a deliberate fumble (which by definition is also a pass). Sometimes it is just better to concede that a mistake was made.
Anonymous
September 24, 2024 at 6:01 pm
@7 The ball is not dead just because it goes out of bounds in midair; otherwise a play like Santonio Holmes’ sideline catch in Super Bowl 43 wouldn’t count
Anonymous
September 24, 2024 at 6:06 pm
@7 – The ball is not dead just by going out of bounds in midair; otherwise a play like Santonio Holmes’ sideline catch in Super Bowl 43 wouldn’t count.
Anonymous
September 25, 2024 at 12:11 am
@8 and @9 – As noted by READTHERULE, the original article was incorrect, as was the apparent explanation by Tolbert to Harbaugh. Under the rules, the fact that the ineligible receiver caught the ball does not have any impact on an intentional grounding call. Intentional grounding occurs when the passer under pressure from the defense throws a forward pass with no realistic chance of completion. The rule goes on to clearly define a “realistic chance of completion” as a pass that is thrown in the direction of, and lands, in the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver. It is a two part test – 1) thrown in the direction of originally eligible receiver AND 2) lands in vicinity of eligible receiver. Both requirements must be met for there to be a realistic chance of completion. In this case, the ball was not thrown in the direction of an originally eligible receiver. It also didn’t land in the vicinity of an eligible receiver (since it didn’t land at all) but that doesn’t matter because it had already failed the first requirement. Consequently, there was no “realistic chance of completion” as that term is defined. Consequently, it was intentional grounding. There is no rule anywhere that somehow causes an offensive lineman to become an originally eligible receiver just because he illegally caught a pass.
Anonymous
September 25, 2024 at 1:21 am
Why can’t the NFL just admit when they’re wrong, so stupid. Now they’re just embarrassing themselves more by trying to say it was a fumble. His arm is clearly in a throwing motion, there’s no other reason he would even have his arm in that motion unless he was throwing it.