News
Cowboys find a loophole to avoid safety
Dak Prescott avoids intentional grounding in the end zone in an unusual way
By all reasonable interpretations of the rulebook, Dak Prescott’s wild pass to avoid a sack in the end zone is a safety. Unknowingly, the Cowboys quarterback was able to exploit a loophole wide enough to fit an offensive lineman to avoid the 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 enforced from the previous spot (five yards, or half-distance in this case). The Ravens declined, which means they take the result of the play — a 0-yard pass to a lineman.
It turns out the lack of intentional grounding is due to a key aspect: the ground.
There is no casebook entry that reasonably replicates this play, so we confirmed with a former official, who said, “you can’t have grounding when the pass was caught.”
So, if Smith touches the ball but doesn’t catch it, it’s intentional grounding. In college football, this would be intentional grounding catch or no catch.
There is a strong chance that this is looked at by the Competition Committee in the offseason. But the call on the field is, indeed, correct.
Quirky Research has a list of linemen who, while in the game as an ineligible player, racked up offensive skill-player stats.
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.