Safety Call - Rule application

[Husker1CO]

I am still dumbfounded by that call. Did he catch it and throw it forward? Yes. My question is why is there a different standard applied to that call than any other forward pass?

He clearly didn't possess the football through the ground, so therefore, he never possessed the ball, he caught it but he didn't make a football move after establishing possession. If he did't possess it/control it, how could he possibly have made a 2nd forward pass? I've seen guys catch and hold the ball a lot longer and it not be ruled a catch. I guess the better action would have been to catch it and let it fall out of his hands when he it the ground...

I was pretty stunned when they overturned that call.

 

[5870]

Pretty sure that play didnt cost the game

 

[Baxter48]

I am still dumbfounded by that call. Did he catch it and throw it forward? Yes. My question is why is there a different standard applied to that call than any other forward pass?

He clearly didn't possess the football through the ground, so therefore, he never possessed the ball, he caught it but he didn't make a football move after establishing possession. If he did't possess it/control it, how could he possibly have made a 2nd forward pass? I've seen guys catch and hold the ball a lot longer and it not be ruled a catch. I guess the better action would have been to catch it and let it fall out of his hands when he it the ground...

I was pretty stunned when they overturned that call.

I sure would like a clarification I thought once a defender touched the ball it's basically live the quarterback lineman can knock it down can catch it and run with it or if behind the line of scrimmage the offensive player can throw it again. I'd also like to know when the defensive player can role up on our punter twice but no flag i always thought that was at least a 5 yard penalty

 

[headcard]

I think they really overthought that one. No where else on the field would that be ruled a catch. Just silly

 

[Jimmy Frank]

I am still dumbfounded by that call. Did he catch it and throw it forward? Yes. My question is why is there a different standard applied to that call than any other forward pass?

He clearly didn't possess the football through the ground, so therefore, he never possessed the ball, he caught it but he didn't make a football move after establishing possession. If he did't possess it/control it, how could he possibly have made a 2nd forward pass? I've seen guys catch and hold the ball a lot longer and it not be ruled a catch. I guess the better action would have been to catch it and let it fall out of his hands when he it the ground...

I was pretty stunned when they overturned that call.

Maybe they should have reviewed it since they apparently can review plays to see if a flag should be thrown now.

 

[saluno22]

Pretty sure that play didnt cost the game

No one is saying it did. It's a strange call either way and I'm sure most fans would like clarity on why that particular play was called the way it was.

For example, why was Martinez's action considered a "second pass" but this was not an illegal forward lateral?


If it wouldn't be considered a "catch" before the action of pushing the ball forward, can it actually be a "pass"?

If it was someone other than the original passer, would the officials have called it the same way?

The announcers called said it was a "smart play" when it was happening. If they are confused, it shouldn't be a shocker that fans are confused as well.
The play is at 5:52...


Again, not saying it impacted the outcome of the game, but more want an understanding of what is and isn't allowed.

 

[Husker1CO]

Pretty sure that play didnt cost the game

Point out where I remotely implied it did. Think the title of the thread pretty much indicated it was a rules discussion. Thanks for adding so much valuable insight.

 

[oldjar07]

BS call. It didn't affect anything but the refs had their heads up their asses the entire game.

 

[mmunso7]

BS call. It didn't affect anything but the refs had their heads up their asses the entire game.

Not an uncommon condition in most sports these days. This includes umpires. Fat, old men should not influence the outcomes of sporting events.

 

[schuele]

The whole ruling seemed really screwed up to me. If the officials really felt Martinez caught the ball and shoveled it forward, they should have just thrown a flag let the play go on. Michigan could have picked up the ball and ran it in for a TD, then declined the illegal forward pass penalty.

Obviously had no impact on the outcome of the game, and in fact the safety might have been a better result for NU because it shifted field position. But I thought the refs got the call right the first time, then over-thought it and changed their minds.

 

[Talimite]

I didn't think this should be an illegal forward pass because as you said he did not establish possession. There is a rule that disallows intentionally batting the ball which could have applied here. (9-4-1 c)

 

[tro80]

Michigan could have picked up the ball and ran it in for a TD, then declined the illegal forward pass penalty.

No, because it wasn't a fumble either way. It was originally a forward pass and so would have been just incomplete. Not unlike any other forward pass that gets batted around a couple times and then falls to the ground.

 

[schuele]

No, because it wasn't a fumble either way. It was originally a forward pass and so would have been just incomplete. Not unlike any other forward pass that gets batted around a couple times and then falls to the ground.

Agree that would have been the most accurate call, but not if the officials really felt Martinez had full possession of the ball. In that case, Martinez would be an eligible receiver who caught a pass and then shoveled it forward. You don't blow the play dead at this point, you throw and flag and let it play out.

I'm not saying the officials should have done that - but they either have to do that, or just rule the first pass incomplete.