Cowboys desperation pass would have been intentional grounding, but here’s why it wouldn’t be a safety

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.