Anyone see the "non-safety" in the Lions/Packers game ?
detroitfan2
Posts: 3,335 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
It is my sincere wish that none of you spent your Sunday night watching the Detroit/Green Bay game on ESPN. But if for some reason you did see it, did you see the play which originally was called a safety but was later over-turned?
Let's forget about the holding call and all that. I'm intrigued by something. According to the rules, as explained by the head referee, the desperation "fumble / forward pass / heaving" of the ball by the Packers running back was ruled simply an incomplete pass. Now maybe I'm a moron for not knowing this, but based on what I heard, in a normal situation, when a running back is essentially "strung out" behind the line of scrimmage on an attempt to get outside, he can simply throw the ball out-of-bounds past the line of scrimmage (as long as he's "outside the tackle box"), and the play will go as an incomplete pass for no gain instead of a 4 or 5 yard loss. Does this make sense to anyone? Why doesn't this happen more?
Let's forget about the holding call and all that. I'm intrigued by something. According to the rules, as explained by the head referee, the desperation "fumble / forward pass / heaving" of the ball by the Packers running back was ruled simply an incomplete pass. Now maybe I'm a moron for not knowing this, but based on what I heard, in a normal situation, when a running back is essentially "strung out" behind the line of scrimmage on an attempt to get outside, he can simply throw the ball out-of-bounds past the line of scrimmage (as long as he's "outside the tackle box"), and the play will go as an incomplete pass for no gain instead of a 4 or 5 yard loss. Does this make sense to anyone? Why doesn't this happen more?
0
Comments
<< <i>It is my sincere wish that none of you spent your Sunday night watching the Detroit/Green Bay game on ESPN. But if for some reason you did see it, did you see the play which originally was called a safety but was later over-turned?
Let's forget about the holding call and all that. I'm intrigued by something. According to the rules, as explained by the head referee, the desperation "fumble / forward pass / heaving" of the ball by the Packers running back was ruled simply an incomplete pass. Now maybe I'm a moron for not knowing this, but based on what I heard, in a normal situation, when a running back is essentially "strung out" behind the line of scrimmage on an attempt to get outside, he can simply throw the ball out-of-bounds past the line of scrimmage (as long as he's "outside the tackle box"), and the play will go as an incomplete pass for no gain instead of a 4 or 5 yard loss. Does this make sense to anyone? Why doesn't this happen more? >>
It makes sense. But normally the player doesn't realize they are going to get tackled behind the line until they are getting tackled behind the line; and are thus in no position to make a "heave" throw. Also, a forward pass in the manner exhibited last night, could sometimes be construed a fumble and since he was getting gang-tackled, it could have lead to a very costly turnover.
Now as far as the holding call is concerned, that was utter BS. The line of scrimmage was the 1 yard line, and the whole freaking O-line was in the endzone. The Lions would have won that game, if home-cooking wasn't in effect.
Agreed, although it does seem like there are times when they know they're doomed and they just run out of bounds. You see the QB's chuck it downfield just prior to going out of bounds a lot, but never the RBs (probably because it doesn't happen as often). I'm just amazed I've never seen it.
<<The Lions would have won that game, if home-cooking wasn't in effect. >>
No offense, but you're not a Lions follower, are you? Even with the safety, they'd have figured out something. Probably would've fumbled the ensuing freekick and lost 18-17.
<< <i>Agreed, although it does seem like there are times when they know they're doomed and they just run out of bounds. You see the QB's chuck it downfield just prior to going out of bounds a lot, but never the RBs (probably because it doesn't happen as often). I'm just amazed I've never seen it. >>
Well RB's are taught to protect the ball so it would seem unnatural for them to bring the ball up. Also their mentality is to truck through the other guy as opposed to a QB who doesn't want contact. The Aints displayed tonight the dangers of throwing the ball away when you're unsure if your arm is strong enough to get the ball past the line.
<< <i>No offense, but you're not a Lions follower, are you? Even with the safety, they'd have figured out something. Probably would've fumbled the ensuing freekick and lost 18-17. >>
I'm a Falcons fan, but I still think that a two point lead and possession with several minutes left in the game, would have secured a W against a 2-10 team.
LOL
JS
2) On a running play, there will be offensive linemen blocking downfield ahead of the rush. If the rusher were to subsequently decide to pass the ball, the team would likely end up with an ineligible man downfield penalty anyway.
3) As already mentioned, the risk of a fumble or interception is not worth the risk.
Outstanding point. That would be the main reason why it wouldn't work for sure. Good thinking Southsider.
Even so, I was wondering why Detroit didn't challenge whether or not Gado was "down" when he tried to make that "pass." It sure looked like a possibilty to me. The announcers never even mentioned it.
I think they were too busy figuring out who was on the "free kick" return team, since they've never actually planned on that happening.