Just before halftime of Sunday’s AFC Championship Game, Bills quarterback Josh Allen took the snap, rolled to his right, and threw the ball away an instant before stepping out of bounds at the 9-yard line. The officials mistakenly ruled him out of bounds. And then the NFL officiating department made a much bigger mistake.
The replay assistant buzzed down to the on-field referee, who then consulted with NFL head of officiating Al Riveron. They looked at the review and found that Allen had thrown the ball away before he stepped out of bounds. So they changed the call to an incomplete pass.
Big problem: That’s not a reviewable play. When a player in possession of the ball is ruled out of bounds, that’s the end of the play. Nothing that happens after that can be reviewed, even if there’s clear and obvious video evidence that the player didn’t actually step out of bounds.
This particular call didn’t really matter — the Bills ended up kicking a field goal, and it’s highly likely they also would have kicked a field goal if the ruling hadn’t been overturned — but it’s alarming that Riveron didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to review the play.
The NFL often takes criticism for its byzantine rules. When the NFL’s own head of officiating can’t keep track of the rules, it’s hard not to feel that criticism is justified. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coogs:
When you are across the sideline, and throw a pass that goes further out of bounds, isn't that the very definition of intentional grounding? Who cares if the ball crosses the LOS to make it a legal pass.
Heck, I think they should call intentional grounding when a screen play fails and the QB throws the ball 10 feet at the RB's feet. [Reply]
Originally Posted by morphius:
That rule is specifically written that way, I don't think there is anyone for throwing after the whistle and continuance.
This is correct, a fumble with a clear recovery. However, the defense cannot gain additional yards on the fumble. That's why people get mad that the refs blow the whistle and don't just let the play continue, because afterwards the fumble could always be reversed, but a likely touchdown has been negated many times by a whistle that should not have been blown.
The NFL has specifically said that you cannot review a quarterback being ruled out of bounds before throwing.
tem 3. Passer Out of Bounds Before Throwing Pass.*A ruling that a player stepped out of*bounds before throwing a pass is not reviewable to determine*if he was inbounds when he threw the pass.
Originally Posted by morphius:
Heck, I think they should call intentional grounding when a screen play fails and the QB throws the ball 10 feet at the RB's feet.
I don't disagree with you there. Quarterback about to get sacked and rifles a ball near a running back but clearly not an attempt at a pass or a catchable ball. Half the time the receiver not even aware that the ball is thrown to them [Reply]
Originally Posted by SupDock:
This is correct, a fumble with a clear recovery. However, the defense cannot gain additional yards on the fumble. That's why people get mad that the refs blow the whistle and don't just let the play continue, because afterwards the fumble could always be reversed, but a likely touchdown has been negated many times by a whistle that should not have been blown.
The NFL has specifically said that you cannot review a quarterback being ruled out of bounds before throwing.
tem 3. Passer Out of Bounds Before Throwing Pass.*A ruling that a player stepped out of*bounds before throwing a pass is not reviewable to determine*if he was inbounds when he threw the pass.
Yup, I get that is what the rule is, but I could very easily see this being something that Mahomes could do. Though now that I've had a second I do like Coogs thought that if the ball, after being thrown, is never in the field of play that it should be considered grounding. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I wonder if there's a concern that a guy would get ruled out of bounds and then come back in and run for a bunch of yards and challenge it? Could that happen?
Oh, wait. If it's specifically about passing, maybe the concern is that defenders have to let up when the QB is going out of bounds, so the QB could use that to his advantage.
It's such a specific rule that there's a specific scenario it's meant to guard against. But what's the scenario?
One concern would be that he could have thrown short of the LOS on the throw and once you overturn the sack (which would have made intentional grounding irrelevant), you can't now call the penalty that he grounded the ball.
I suspect that wasn't considered in the rule creation though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coogs:
When you are across the sideline, and throw a pass that goes further out of bounds, isn't that the very definition of intentional grounding? Who cares if the ball crosses the LOS to make it a legal pass.
Originally Posted by petegz28:
That's not entirely true. You can recover a fumble even after the whistle. That happened to us in Phoenix a few years back. Kelce thought he had a catch and we were in hurry up so he got up and ran back to the huddle and the defender recovered the ball. It was ruled a complete pass but Arians challenged the catch and the Ref ultimately ruled a fumble with clear recovery by Phoenix even though it was after the whistle.
That seems familiar..I thought it was the wrong call because technically he gave himself up. Something similar happened this year and they ruled the guy gave himself up so I'm not sure what was different [Reply]
Originally Posted by morphius:
Heck, I think they should call intentional grounding when a screen play fails and the QB throws the ball 10 feet at the RB's feet.
That will never happen..otherwise the qb has no protection on that play. Can't throw it downfield because it's a screen and you will have linemen downfield [Reply]
personally I just want the calls to be right, no excuses afterwards. I think coaches should be able to challenge anything they want, but still only get 2 challenges (3 if they get both challenges right). No challenges allowed for holding as it happens on every play [Reply]
I think Allen did this twice in the game. I can see a change in the rule coming in the near future. I think the QB should at least have to throw the ball back into the field of play for this not to be intentional grounding. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
That's not entirely true. You can recover a fumble even after the whistle. That happened to us in Phoenix a few years back. Kelce thought he had a catch and we were in hurry up so he got up and ran back to the huddle and the defender recovered the ball. It was ruled a complete pass but Arians challenged the catch and the Ref ultimately ruled a fumble with clear recovery by Phoenix even though it was after the whistle.
I remember that.
It was obvious Kelce gave himself up, put the ball on the ground and got up to get set for the hurry-up snap to kill the clock.
Originally Posted by dj56dt58:
That will never happen..otherwise the qb has no protection on that play. Can't throw it downfield because it's a screen and you will have linemen downfield
I'd like to see it be the risk of trying to run that play, QB will either have to run, risk a penalty, or try to force the ball close enough that it looks like he at least tried. [Reply]
Originally Posted by morphius:
Heck, I think they should call intentional grounding when a screen play fails and the QB throws the ball 10 feet at the RB's feet.