It actually WAS an illegal forward pass. When you use an 'unnatural' throwing motion a few things have to happen.
A: the pass has to have a legitimate chance of being completed. (I think everyone knows that the chance of it being completed was about .001%)
B: the pass has to at least get back to the LOS. (The ball came up about 3 yrds short of the LOS and about 8 yrds short of the nearest receiver)
The call looks to be correct but the outcome (safety) was 1000% accurate.
It clearly wasn’t a “natural” throwing motion; but the rules don’t require a pass to be thrown with a “natural” motion. Under Rule 8, Section 1, Article 1, a legal forward pass is any pass (including an attempt to fumble forward) made from behind the line of scrimmage, if the ball hasn’t moved beyond the line of scrimmage and then returned behind it. An illegal forward pass is “[a]ny other forward pass.” So, as long as the ball has not moved beyond the LOS, there is no illegal forward pass.
How many times have we seen QBs throw that pass? More times than I can count. There's nothing illegal about the motion and action of that pass. Had the pass been caught, there would have been no penalty and if that's the case, there's no "illegal forward pass".
It WAS intentional grounding in my opinion. However, one could even argue that if they were so inclined. According to the rule book, the pass can be anywhere once the QB is outside of the tackle box as long as it lands "near or beyond" the line of scrimmage. I guess it would depend on your definition of "near", but it certainly did not make it back to the LOS. If you want to argue that Rodgers was still in the tackle box so the pass has to be near a receiver and catchable, Tory Humphrey was only a couple of yards away from where that ball landed. It certainly met the catchable definition as I've seen it in hundreds of other cases, but I doubt he could have caught it.
There is a distinct difference between the two fouls. Intentional grounding results in a loss of ten yards or the spot of the foul, whichever is greater, and a loss of down. An illegal forward pass results in a five-yard penalty and no loss of down. Had this penalty NOT occured in the endzone, there would have been more of a problem.
For either penalty, an infraction in the end zone is a safety, so the outcome is correct, but the reasoning given on the field is not.
Packer fans should be more upset that Peterson wasn't flagged for removing his helmet outside of the bench area during his TD celebration. He was still pretty much in the endzone when he took it off. That was a clear violation and should have been called. I don't know if it would have made much difference, but they should try to get the calls right.
Thanks for the explanation guys, it makes a little more sense now.
So here's my next question and I apologize for it not being Vikings related: In the MNF game between the Cardinals and the 49ers, there was a pass that was ruled incomplete in the first quarter. It was on the sidelines and the replay showed the 49ers receiver catch the ball with his left foot clearly in bounds and dragging his right foot behind him. He then took two more steps out of bounds while falling to the ground, all the while having complete control of the ball. Only after his second step out of bounds did his right arm come into contact with the ground, jarring the ball loose. This was ruled incomplete and I was in total disbelief that the ground could cause this to be incomplete after 3+ steps while in total control of the ball. It didn't have much bearing on the outcome at that point but it sure could've factored in as it would've kept the drive alive and the outcome was close. Did anyone else see this ?
Sorry, I don't watch MNF anymore unless one of my teams is on or its a really big game. Sounds like a "judgment" type call and given the judgment of NFL officials these days, they may have gotten it wrong. :laugh:
For being such a great league the officiating in the NFL is atrocious. I know they do their best, but there are so many mistakes it's just not right.
