Officiating question. CFP fumble call.
The call in question was the Georgia fumble (vs incomplete pass) recovered by Alabama that ultimately resulted in Bama's lone touchdown. This is not to debate fumble vs incomplete pass, on which I think reasonable people can disagree or whether Alabama regained possession in bounds. I personally think that it's BS to make it EITHER a fumble or intentional grounding since a hit at that precise time makes determining the quarterback's intention impossible as his motion is so disrupted.
My question is the legality within the rules of what they called. They essentially made TWO calls on the field. 1) It was a fumble recovered by Alabama and a contingent call that 2) if it wasn't a fumble then it was intentional grounding. A assume since both of those things are reviewable it's within the rules. Any input from someone more familiar with the rules would be interesting.
January 12th, 2022 at 8:48 PM ^
If your hand pushes the ball forward while you're making a deliberate throwing motion, it should be an incomplete pass. End of story. Taking it to replay and then trying to determine if his pinky finger came off and he lost control because the nose of the ball moved upward blah blah. . . Get the fuck out with that bullshit. Plus it slows the game down and turns the game into a nitpick fest of refs officiating the play retroactively. Not the purpose of replay.
January 12th, 2022 at 8:53 PM ^
You want to get rid of replay you'll get no argument from me.
January 12th, 2022 at 11:53 PM ^
I hate replay, especially every single play. If we have to have it, go to the challenges style based on the number of timeouts available and leave it to the coaches if it's worth review or not.
January 13th, 2022 at 12:10 AM ^
I'm willing to live with human error as replay makes so many games near unwatchable.
That and the definition of "indisputable" seems to be lost on these guys.
January 13th, 2022 at 2:59 PM ^
Yes. Instant replay is now used to officiate after the play. It no longer even considers the original call.
January 13th, 2022 at 1:12 AM ^
Yeah, this was a horrible, horrible call (almost as bad as the MSU overturn). It's simple physics. If the ball goes forward and wasn't touched/moved by anything else (the tackle was at his waist / lower body and didn't push his arm forward), then your arm/hand had to be going forward in your passing motion. It was clear as day.
It was 100 percent a throw. Whether it was intentional grounding is a tougher call. To your point, hard to determine it was "intentional" because the direction of the pass impacted by the tackle. But if the rule is based solely on whether a receiver was in the area (and not whether it was intended to be in the area of a player), which makes it easier to officiate anyway, then it was grounding.
January 13th, 2022 at 5:09 AM ^
Seems like it would just be easier officiating to give the QB the benefit of the doubt when his throw is clearly impacted by a hit. QBs aren’t responsible for a tipped ball falling where nobody is, so why isn’t it the same when their arm is prevented from completing the throwing process?
January 13th, 2022 at 11:34 AM ^
It was the correct call. When Stetson Bennett's arm is cocked back the ball slides out of his small hands. In fact, while his arm is still cocked back behind his shoulder, the nose of the football is pointed straight up towards the ceiling. Harris is wrapped up around Bennett's waist, he didn't jar the ball loose, Bennett just couldn't hang onto the ball and the ball is coming out before there is any forward momentum of Bennett's arm. Bennett's fingertips hit the back of the football to move it forward instead of having it land behind Harris and him.
January 13th, 2022 at 5:58 AM ^
Oh, like the NFL abolished "Tuck Rule"?
January 13th, 2022 at 12:34 PM ^
He threw (emphasis on the word threw) the ball something like 8 yards downfield and all the way to the sideline. How that's not a pass beats the hell out of me.
January 12th, 2022 at 8:50 PM ^
Like most people on the internet I'm (not) an expert on this topic. My personal belief though- given that throwing the ball away is an attempt to avoid the sack, if you don't do it have your throwaway match certain criteria, it should count as a sack. Even if he was trying to throw it to the line of scrimmage, but couldn't because of the hit, then he "threw it away too late".
I couldn't believe they determined he recovered the fumble in-bounds, but maybe that's only due to the nonchalance of the recoverer.
January 13th, 2022 at 5:12 AM ^
But he didn’t “throw it away too late.” He got rid of it before he was down. Unless you’re implying QBs should be ruled down on contact, there’s no real argument for him throwing it away too late.
January 13th, 2022 at 12:30 PM ^
I think "too late" and down are at different times in the play. If a defender is draped on the QB and impedes his throwing motion or dislodges the ball mid-motion then that's the "too late" being talking about. While not down per se, he shouldn't be allowed to just wing the ball wherever to avoid a sack. If the QB is outside the tackle box and the ball makes it back to the LOS or there's a receiver in the area of the pass, then no problem.
However, if the QB is being hit while throwing and the ball doesn't make it back to the LOS then that's intentional grounding and he probably threw it "too late" while also not being down.
(I think I saw the replay once or twice, so this is just a general take. I'm not sure where receivers where on the field.)
January 12th, 2022 at 8:57 PM ^
I like that they don't blow the play dead prematurely anymore, but there should be no "stands" in that case. Either confirm or overrule. You can't just default to the call on the field in this situation because the refs are instructed to intentionally err (sometimes egregiously) on the side of fumble.
IMO his hand was clearly moving forward why he still had a grip on the ball, albeit not a very good one, and propelled the ball forward. Incomplete pass.
I also agree intentional grounding is off the table on hits like this where you can't tell where he's trying to throw it.
January 12th, 2022 at 10:36 PM ^
Very, very good point that since refs are now erring on the side of letting the play go as a fumble - since replay can always revert back to an incomplete pass - the replay review should not also be biased toward the play as called.
January 12th, 2022 at 10:58 PM ^
You are exactly right with about the flaw of defaulting to the call on the field. You can't tell the refs, when in doubt keep the play going (even when you're maybe 75% sure the play should have ended) and then stand with a bad ruling because you're only 75% sure that it is bad.
January 13th, 2022 at 12:02 AM ^
I am in total agreement with you, except I think there's an easier solution. Let the play go in case it's a fumble, and then make a ruling on the field, which does not need to be a fumble.
If the refs on the field decide it's an incomplete pass, that's the call that "stands" if the video is indecisive. But if the refs decide it's incomplete, and it's overturned on review, you let the result that had played out take effect, so you don't lose the benefit of advancing a fumble recovery.
January 13th, 2022 at 8:30 AM ^
I think they can do this now.
January 13th, 2022 at 12:18 AM ^
I’ll be consistent with what I said after the MSU game. The call on the field has to stand unless there is indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field. The call on the field was fumble, recovered by Bama. There wasn’t enough to change the outcome of the call. Georgia was pretty unfortunate in that two hair splitting calls went against them on one play, but it happened. I’d much rather see refs err on the side of not overturning calls on the field than re-officiating things that are not clear.
January 12th, 2022 at 9:01 PM ^
Seemed like a BS call to me. Fumble - maybe. But intentional grounding - how? Makes no sense. Glad GA overcame it to win the game going away.
January 12th, 2022 at 9:42 PM ^
Earlier, the Bama QB was getting tackled with his throwing arm pinned to his side. The ball came out and replay said he was in a throwing motion. If so, he was intentionally grounding. But, he couldn’t move his arm - another BS call that favored Bama.
January 12th, 2022 at 10:40 PM ^
The only reason he wasn't was because they had a receiver standing about 5-7 yards in front of him. Ball bounced right past him. Now I think it's fair to argue whether or not that should be considered "in the area" but that's why they ruled it that way.
January 13th, 2022 at 8:43 AM ^
I thought the very same thing....on slow mo, I thought AL QB definitely through that in the ground on purpose....I dont believe he tried to do anything other than avoid the sack...I thought they should at least be consistent.
January 13th, 2022 at 11:16 AM ^
To overcome the intentional grounding, the QB has to be outside of the pocket, which he was but the ball also has to be thrown beyond the line of scrimmage. It was not, thus had it been ruled a pass it would have been intentional grounding.
January 12th, 2022 at 9:28 PM ^
Intentional grounding is not able to be reviewed in that capacity. They made that call on the field so that when they reviewed, they did not give the impression of calling a penalty after reviewing a non-reviewable play. Made their intentions clear which I thought was a good decision.
As far as why it was ruled grounding, he didn't start attempting to throw until he was contacted so it fits the interpretation of intentionally throwing away to avoid a sack so the ball needs to get to the LOS or to a receiver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7kjSiHSLi0
If he were already in his throwing motion and someone contacted his arm or body they likely would not call the grounding for the reason you mentioned. Also, I don't believe NCAA actually has a rule about contact altering a throw and being grounds to negate grounding.
January 12th, 2022 at 9:44 PM ^
Thanks. I guess the "contingent" call isn't that unusual (For instance, down my contact vs fumble and return for touchdown). It just struck me as odd as usually the result of a review either favors one team or it favors the other. In this scenario there wasn't a good outcome for Georgia in either result of the review.
"The ruling on the field is a fumble resulting in Alabama possession and if it wasn't a fumble, it was intentional grounding. And if it wasn't intentional grounding there was a hold on the offense and if there wasn't a hold, the quarterback's mom is a whore...."
January 12th, 2022 at 9:45 PM ^
Intentional Grounding is a bad rule - because it requires assessment of the QB’s intent. I think the penalty should be Insufficient Forward Pass for anything that is not:
1. QB is in the pocket, some overhand throwing motion, ball lands beyond LOS and within 5 yards of an eligible receiver.
2. QB is in the pocket, some overhand throwing motion, ball lands behind LOS and is touched by an eligible receiver.
3. QB is outside pocket and ball lands beyond LOS.
Young’s spike and Bennett’s half punt would both be IFP. Spot ball at the foul and loss of down. Young’s throw (which was ruled IG) would still be IFP since no one was within 5 yards.
Penalize QBs for horrible throws and marginally bad throws under duress. Take away why the QB did it, but how the QB executed.
January 13th, 2022 at 5:55 AM ^
You can't do this because it turns WR route tree mistakes into penalties.
January 13th, 2022 at 7:49 AM ^
Lots of deep passes land more than 5 yards away from a receiver. Anything even a little overthrown might. Why are we turning bad throws into penalties? They might not even be bad passes. Who wants to watch the refs measuring where the ball landed vs where the receiver was standing 15 times a game?
January 13th, 2022 at 12:39 PM ^
Why is intentional grounding still a penalty? It never made much sense 20 years ago, before QB safety was such a priority and it definitely doesn't make sense in today's game. Why can a QB toss a ball into the stands when he's under no pressure and not get penalized? Should he be rewarded for not trying to extend the play, rather than just giving up on it? Being close is not rewarded in any other aspect of football, except for intentional grounding, in which the defense is rewarded for almost sacking the QB. The QB is not rewarded for, in many cases making an athletic play just to get the ball away, usually after extending the play. Why should it make a difference if there is a receiver within 5 yards or 15 yards, or if the ball gets back to the LOS, those are just arbitrary thresholds. IF QB safety is such a priority, just junk intentional grounding and let the QB try to make the best play possible. Isn't that more exciting football? Plus, it's ridiculous that most grounding calls take a conference by 4 refs and end up with a flag being thrown a minute after the play has ended.
January 12th, 2022 at 10:02 PM ^
Incomplete pass. The ball was recovered however if the call was fumble.
January 12th, 2022 at 10:55 PM ^
GA pass travels about 10 yards downfield - fumble. Bama pass basically drops near QB's feet - incomplete pass. the refs were on drugs...or on Bama.
January 12th, 2022 at 11:03 PM ^
Very hard to tell live, on replay looked liked the ball started to come out before his arm moved forward. And the recovery was barely in bounds. At the time, thought it was a game changer.
January 12th, 2022 at 11:32 PM ^
but the ball traveled about 10 yards. physics says the arm must have been going forward for a ball to travel that far.
January 13th, 2022 at 7:31 AM ^
You don’t think a QB can fumble forward without possession of the ball?
Have you not seen that 100 times when the QB clearly lost a ball and still pushed it forward without possession of it? If that is all you are going on, I think you need something else. I think the call was borderline but not egregious but the ball moving forward has zero to do with my determination.
January 13th, 2022 at 11:21 AM ^
Find video of the replay and slow it down. The ball is coming out of Stetson Bennett's hand while his arm is cocked back. In fact, the nose of the football is pointed straight up to the ceiling as his arm goes forward and like a rocket ship, Bennett is throwing the ball straight up. When Bennett brings his arm forward, his fingertips hit the back of the ball which moves it forward. Correct call, a fumble.
January 13th, 2022 at 12:05 AM ^
In one sense, if a guy is getting wrecked while flinging the ball away, it should be Grounding without question.
In the other sense, we've all seen elite QB's hit a receiver for a chunk play while getting wrecked.
There's no way to tell Bennett's true intent while getting wrecked on this particular play, so the sport's decision to go with Dan Dakich's advice: "Ball don't lie" is probably as consistently correct as we can get.
January 13th, 2022 at 3:29 AM ^
I didn't think too much about it at the time. But looking at it now, it has to be an incomplete pass since the forward motion of his arm propelled it forward. Terrible call.
January 13th, 2022 at 5:55 AM ^
Let's make a new rule and call it the "Tuck Rule" when an offensive player is holding the ball to pass it forward. Any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body.
January 13th, 2022 at 8:40 AM ^
When the game was over I forgot about the BS fumble and recovery call and was schadenfreude happy that Bama got beat almost as bad as we got beat score wise. 33-18 vs. 34-11. If you take off their BS TD, Bama it is even closer. 33-11 vs. 34-11. (I did the math for you.)
Bama played them much closer but I'm going to continue to rationalize how Michigan is better than most everybody.
January 13th, 2022 at 11:39 AM ^
I'm in the minority and possibly completely wrong, but what if we eliminated *intentional grounding* as a penalty? Just allow the quarterback to throw it wherever he wants? What are we losing competitively by telling a QB that he must be clearly throwing at an eligible receiver? Sacks? I've never completely understood the value of this rule.
January 13th, 2022 at 12:43 PM ^
I second that!!
Why is intentional grounding still a penalty? It never made much sense 20 years ago, before QB safety was such a priority and it definitely doesn't make sense in today's game. Why can a QB toss a ball into the stands when he's under no pressure and not get penalized? Should he be rewarded for not trying to extend the play, rather than just giving up on it? Being close is not rewarded in any other aspect of football, except for intentional grounding, in which the defense is rewarded for almost sacking the QB. The QB is not rewarded for, in many cases making an athletic play just to get the ball away, usually after extending the play. Why should it make a difference if there is a receiver within 5 yards or 15 yards, or if the ball gets back to the LOS, those are just arbitrary thresholds. IF QB safety is such a priority, just junk intentional grounding and let the QB try to make the best play possible. Isn't that more exciting football? Plus, it's ridiculous that most grounding calls take a conference by 4 refs and end up with a flag being thrown a minute after the play has ended.
January 13th, 2022 at 1:11 PM ^
How could you ever sack a quarterback if they can just chuck it any time at the last second?