No Consistancy whatsoever

OK It was just ruled that Collaros' back foot was behind the LOS when the ball was thrown.....OK FIne

2-3 weeks ago it was ruled that there was no safety on an intentional ground flag against Fajardo because the ball had crossed the goal line when it was released!!!

Can we please stop making up rules as we go along?

1 Like

Collaros was'in the air' when he threw the ball. What if had his feet on the ground with his back foot behind the line of scrimmage ?

The intentional grounding by Fajardo was definitely a safety touch

Are you saying with his front foot ahead of the LOS? I dont know.
But just like the kickoff out of bounds...for Fajardo they looked at where the ball was, for Collaros they look at were his feet were(where his back foot was)
Totally inconstant and it was as if they made up a rule to fit what they wanted the outcome to be

1 Like

Not quoting any one here nor picking out any particular fan base or single member here

the correct call was made on the field. You all need to live with the fact that there was NO conclusive evidence to overturn the call was there to be seen. The refs do not have instant replay. nor frame by frame slow motion nor the luxury to look for days and weeks on end to look at the plays they make calls on.
One can analyse every single play and one teams fans can always find something to say where the refs screwed up...
What do you want, a robot with artificial intelligence and an adjustable dial to be or not be a homer on some calls.
I do not know how some fans can enjoy the game when all they do is look for stuff like this on every game they take in

4 Likes

It was a scoring play....it was automatically reviewed by the command center. With frame by frame and slow mo

As per one of the announcers, they called the announcers to explain that his back foot was behind the line

For Fajardo
It was a potential scoring play...it was reviewed by the command center who ruled that when the ball was released, it was outside of the end zone

Conclusive evidence has nothing to do with it....the rule was explained in both cases

The refs not having slomo has nothing to do with it....the rulling was made by the command center who have slo mo

2 exact circumstances 2 different rules were quoted

The command center changed the rules to make the call the right one

"what they wanted the outcome to be'. If that is the case, it is sad and concerning

Obviously I do not know that for a fact, but the fact that they dug up 2 different rules for the same situation is concerning

Different no? One was a safety the other a touchdown pass? Or is it the same because it’s a passing play?

They were both passing plays....
if he were running for a first down...its the ball that counts, not the BACK foot

1 Like

...it's the same. If any part is behind the line, he's still not over the line. Same as receivers on the snap...

1 Like

and on the Farjado play?

Didn't see it...

Fajardo was flagged for intentional grounding while both feet were in the endzone, the command center ruled no safety because the ball passes the goal line. The throwing motion had the ball past the goal line

Article 7 – Intentional Grounding
If a Team A passer deliberately, and in the official’s opinion for the purpose of
avoiding a loss of yardage, throws the ball behind the line of scrimmage whether
to the ground or out of bounds or to an area in which there is not an eligible
Team A receiver, the team shall be penalized.
PENALTY: LD at point from which pass was thrown. If the pass was thrown from
the Goal Area, a safety touch score shall be awarded to Team B, subject to the
right of Team B to decline the score and accept the play as it terminated.

NOTE: Team A shall not be penalized if the passer throws the ball across the line
of scrimmage or throws the ball out of bounds as long as it crosses the line of
scrimmage in bounds.

So again the right call was made? Asking for a friend

I didn't see the play or know all the minutiae of the rules, but to score a touchdown, the ball only has to cross the plane of the goal line, not the player's foot/feet. Perhaps the same "plane" rule is applied to safeties.

Illegal pass is a different rule altogether.

Not sure why you bolded that
Not sure why you posted the rule either....
It does not explain anything

Fair enough but that leads to my point
If that is the case then there is no constancy
For plays a c d and f its the ball that counts
For b e and g its the feet

...because, even if it was intentional grounding, if the ball lands behind the LOS its a safety, if it lands past the LOS, then half the distance and no Safety.....

So did the ball land before the LOS or past it?

So - you are arguing a rule but the rule itself means nothing??? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You don't understand
It was ruled intentional grounding because it did not pass the los

The issue was whether or not it was a safety.
It was ruled not a safety because even though both feet were in the endzone...the ball was passed the goal line when it was released