Ryan Allen's Decision to pass on the Safety, and Dierdorf's odd analysis

[fnordcircle]

I love how they have been treating his retirement like he's ******* Madden or Summerall.

 

[wpdougie2180]

Actually it should have either been a incompetion or a touchback since according to the rules:

NFL Rule 8, Section 7, Article 3, Item 4b
If a ball is fumbled in a team’s own end zone or in the field of play and goes out of bounds in the end zone, it is a
safety, if that team provided the impetus that sent the ball into the end zone (See 11-5-1 for exception for
momentum). If the impetus was provided by the opponent, it is a touchback.

And the rule doesn't mention intent so if it was ruled a fumble the Colt player batted it out of bounds if not then it was a forward pass and should have been ruled a incompletion there is no in between.

 

[supafly]

Actually it should have either been a incompetion or a touchback since according to the rules:



And the rule doesn't mention intent so if it was ruled a fumble the Colt player batted it out of bounds if not then it was a forward pass and should have been ruled a incompletion there is no in between.

Thank you for the clarification, but would you mind breaking it down into tonight's scenario?

I've had a bottle of Pinot Noir to myself, and I'm finding the rule interpretation a bit hard to decipher in tonight's terms.

 

[wpdougie2180]

Thank you for the clarification, but would you mind breaking it down into tonight's scenario?

I've had a bottle of Pinot Noir to myself, and I'm finding the rule interpretation a bit hard to decipher in tonight's terms.

If Allen was ruled to have fumbled the colts player was the reason it went out of bounds & since he was the last to touch it it's a touchback but if it was ruled a forward pass then obviously it's an incompletion since it went out of bounds.

As an example if the Allen play is a fumble and the Colts scramble to dive on the ball in the end zone and the ball goes out of bounds is that not always a touchback. It was a major screwup by a bad officiating crew. What would be the difference if it unfolded that way as compared to how it actually unfolded?

 

[supafly]

If Allen was ruled to have fumbled the colts player was the reason it went out of bounds & since he was the last to touch it it's a touchback but if it was ruled a forward pass then obviously it's an incompletion since it went out of bounds.

So, would the incompletion have been at the original LOS around the 40 or so, or would it have been at the 2 yd line?

Thanks for the response.

 

[wpdougie2180]

So, would the incompletion have been at the original LOS around the 40 or so, or would it have been at the 2 yd line?

Thanks for the response.

Line of scrimmage, there is no rule that I know of that says you have to be a certain amount of yards behind the LOS to attempt a pass. So theoretically you could run all the way to your endzone and then just dump it off to the closest eligible receiver and if it's incomplete it goes back to the line of scrimmage. Isn't that similar to the famous McNabb play except he actually completed the pass.

Also for another example if the Allen play is a fumble and the Colts scramble to dive on the ball in the end zone and the ball goes out of bounds is that not always a touchback. It was a major screwup by a bad officiating crew. What would be the difference if it unfolded that way as compared to how it actually unfolded?

 

[supafly]

Line of scrimmage, there is no rule that I know of that says you have to be a certain amount of yards behind the LOS to attempt a pass. So theoretically you could run all the way to your endzone and then just dump it off to the closest eligible receiver and if it's incomplete it goes back to the line of scrimmage. Isn't that similar to the famous McNabb play except he actually completed the pass.

Also for another example if the Allen play is a fumble and the Colts scramble to dive on the ball in the end zone and the ball goes out of bounds is that not always a touchback. It was a major screwup by a bad officiating crew. What would be the difference if it unfolded that way as compared to how it actually unfolded?

I wasn't sure if the rule was any different for a change of possession type play such as a FG or punt. Obviously, I know that it doesn't matter for a regular play. I suppose it'd be the same for a fake punt attempt that went backwards and ultimately did not work out, so that makes sense.

Thanks for the explanation. Much appreciated.

 

[supafly]

I love how they have been treating his retirement like he's ******* Madden or Summerall.

Yeah, I teared up a bit when he claimed that it's always been his lifelong dream to work for CBS.

I feel the same way with the Playboy channel network.

 

[Kdo5]

I love how they have been treating his retirement like he's ******* Madden or Summerall.

I understand he has been a commentator for a long time but still. I think I rolled my eyes when he stated that Blount was making fantasy owners happy. How many people actually do FF in the postseason!?

 

[supafly]

I've always thought that Dierdorf was an awful announcer, but for some reason I didn't personally find him as annoying tonight.

Maybe it was just the adrenaline flowing more for the postseason game, but I didn't notice his idiotic comments as much tonight as I normally do.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If Allen was ruled to have fumbled the colts player was the reason it went out of bounds & since he was the last to touch it it's a touchback

Wrong. That's now how the "impetus" doctrine works. Because no Colt ever had possession and because the bat was unintentional, impetus remains attributed to Allen, so it is indeed properly a safety.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Dierdorf was completely incoherent tonight. I wonder if he has a medical condition affecting him. He couldn't complete a sentence.

 

[Mack Herron]

Wrong. That's now how the "impetus" doctrine works. Because no Colt ever had possession and because the bat was unintentional, impetus remains attributed to Allen, so it is indeed properly a safety.

What is your source for "intent"? The NFL avoids charging officials with assigning intent and I can't find this in the rules:

NFL Rule 8, Section 7, Article 3, Item 4b
If a ball is fumbled in a team’s own end zone or in the field of play and goes out of bounds in the end zone, it is a safety, if that team provided the impetus that sent the ball into the end zone (See 11-5-1 for exception for momentum). If the impetus was provided by the opponent, it is a touchback.

The impetus is always attributed to the offense, unless the defense creates a new force that sends the ball behind its own goal line by muffing a ball which is at rest or nearly at rest, or by illegally batting or illegally kicking a ball (3-15-3)

IMPETUS
Article 3
Impetus is the action of a player that gives momentum to the ball and sends it in touch. The Impetus is attributed to the offense except when
the ball is sent in touch through a new momentum when
the defense muffs a ball which is at rest, or nearly at rest, or illegally bats:
(a) a kick or fumble;
(b) a backward pass after it has struck the ground;
(c) or illegally kicks any ball (12-1-9).
Note 1: If a passive player is pushed or blocked into any kick or fumble, or into a backward pass after it has struck the ground,
and if such pushing or blocking is the primary factor that sends such a loose ball in touch, the impetus is by the pusher or
blocker, and the pushed (blocked) player will not be
considered to have touched the ball. See 9-2-4.

 

[Froob]

Line of scrimmage, there is no rule that I know of that says you have to be a certain amount of yards behind the LOS to attempt a pass. So theoretically you could run all the way to your endzone and then just dump it off to the closest eligible receiver and if it's incomplete it goes back to the line of scrimmage. Isn't that similar to the famous McNabb play except he actually completed the pass.

Also for another example if the Allen play is a fumble and the Colts scramble to dive on the ball in the end zone and the ball goes out of bounds is that not always a touchback. It was a major screwup by a bad officiating crew. What would be the difference if it unfolded that way as compared to how it actually unfolded?

I don't think it was. None of the colts players ever had possession of the ball. Had one of them picked it up and gained possession of the ball and then fumbled the ball out of the endzone it would have been a touchback. I believe they made the correct call.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually it should have either been a incompetion or a touchback since according to the rules:



And the rule doesn't mention intent so if it was ruled a fumble the Colt player batted it out of bounds if not then it was a forward pass and should have been ruled a incompletion there is no in between.

I thought it was an incomplete pass at first too but it was just a dropped ball. The impetus to go out of the end zone was from the colt player

 

[50-yard-line]

Actually it should have either been a incompetion or a touchback since according to the rules:



And the rule doesn't mention intent so if it was ruled a fumble the Colt player batted it out of bounds if not then it was a forward pass and should have been ruled a incompletion there is no in between.

Okay, BUT...

would it have been ruled change of possession/change of possession, granting a 1st and 10 for the Pats on the 20, or would it have been no change, thus giving the Colts a 1t and 10 on the Patriots 20 in turnover on downs?

 

[Uncle Rico]

Dierdorf was completely incoherent tonight. I wonder if he has a medical condition affecting him. He couldn't complete a sentence.

I seriously wonder that too.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

What is your source for "intent"? The NFL avoids charging officials with assigning intent and I can't find this in the rules:

The source is the very rule you quoted that says impetus only transfers to defense if the ball was illegally kicked or batted. For a kick or bat to be illegal there has to be intent. So intent is essentially incorporated by reference from the definition of illegal kick/bat.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I thought it was an incomplete pass at first too but it was just a dropped ball. The impetus to go out of the end zone was from the colt player

As noted above, impetus has a very specific meaning in football.

From the moment of the snap, the impetus belonged to the Patriots. Until and unless the Colts gained possession of the ball, the impetus remained with the Patriots.

This is why a kick returner can go out the back of the end zone trying to catch the ball without harm: the impetus on a kickoff remains with the kicking team until the return man brings the ball outside the EZ.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Nope. First, if the defense accepts the penalty it is 4th down over again. Second, the 15 yd illegal batting/kicking penalty is enforced from the line of scrimmage, not the spot of the bat/kick.

So defense would always decline the penalty and take the safety.

Don't you remember the Colts punter kicking the ball out of the endzone after a bad snap in the 2003 AFCCG?

It depends on what penalty was called. Remember the penalty for intentional grounding includes loss of down, so intentional grounding on fourth down, if accepted, automatically results in a turnover on downs.