Preseason game #2: Vikings - Cardinals game thread 8/16

[Texas Vike]

Thanks for the rules clarification on the fumble. As per the batted pass, I found this at nfl.com. http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands
Looks like the rule needs to be cleaned up a bit. The lineman appears to bat the ball laterally but with a little bit of english, so the ball actually rolled toward his opponent's end zone before Bauman scooped it up.



Clearly the ball is rolling forward.

The 2nd part of the play that I have a problem with, is Lindley clearly had possession when he picked up the loose ball, ever so briefly with both hands, and flipped it backward. I'm unable to find a replay of an angle that shows the subtle flip, but I saw it from the camera angle behind the play during the game.

But I'll try not to complain too much lol, it was a meaningless game and the ref actually did us a favor by allowing that play to stand because it led to some valuable 2 minute drill experience for Teddy. If the TD wasn't allowed to stand then Teddy only gains some experience taking knee. The glass is half full

Nice post.

[Mothman]

The reason the ref allowed the play to stand is because the ball wasn't batted forward. I don't think there is any question that the player 'intentionally' batted the ball, but since it didn't go forward then it was legal (the rule states a player can't intentionally bat a ball toward the opponent's goal line). For those who will argue that it did go forward, that happened after the ball was batted laterally (or slightly backward) and started rolling it then took a turn and started rolling forward. Since the initial bat was lateral/backward, rolling forward after hitting the ground is insignificant.

Well said. I think you have that exactly right.

For those claiming it was a fumble an couldn't be advanced, you've got a valid point. If you look at the official scoring for the play, they call it a recovered fumble for a touchdown. So if they call it a fumble, the only person that can advance a fumble on 4th down is the person who fumbled the ball, which would have been the qb since they charged him with the fumble. There are obviously some holes in the rules for this situation that they need to clarify.

I see your what you're saying but it turns out the rules are actually clear on this point because that snap was actually considered a backwards pass and it was never possessed by any player (prior to the recovery and TD) so it could be picked up and advanced by any player on the field, regardless of the down or the amount of time remaining in the half.

Pelissero covered it in USAToday.:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/08/zach-ba ... ta-vikings

[Just Me]

Well, they did forget it, because the exact words were "almost forgot how to say game winning drive" and it was in our last regular season game just 2 games ago! People think Cassel should start, but people in the stands will be chanting for the backup QB as soon as he throws an interception or has one bad game. Actually they are chanting for the backup now, when Cassel has been nearly flawless. Poor Massel. People will be chanting for Teddy if he does anything short of walk on water.

I attributed it more to hyperbole/humor than actually thinking that Cassel was incompetent. If anything, since Ponder has been our de facto starter for the past three years, it was a generic "swipe" at him.

Go back and read what people said about Ponder's first game and first starts. How quickly people forget, indeed. It all looked sooo promising. They spoke of his smart play for a rookie, his poise in the pocket under pressure (I'm not joking!!), not getting happy feet (I'm not joking!), and his comeback ability (I'm not joking!). I hope Teddy is the future too and I believe he will be but he has played less than one preseason game against backups so far. It is way too soon to forget these other things.

Haven't forgotten any of them. In fact, I agree with you on that point. Which is why I posted what I did. Teddy is going to be a starter at some point. It WILL happen. (For the same reasons that Christian Ponder was going to be a starter - 1st round draft pick, old journeyman QBs as a "stopgap" solution to our problems, etc.). Ponder's first NFL action was not as good as Bridgewater's. He has a better second season and had some come from behind victories (notably against Jacksonville at home) and a drive in Indianapolis which tied the score in the final minutes of regulation (which the Vikings subsequently lost - not Ponder's fault). To reiterate: I have optimism for the future. Teddy could still be Ponder V 2.0 or Joe Montana. I am encouraged that he looked more like Montana in his last action. (He looked more like Ponder in his first.) I am happy that we now have a Rookie QB that looks like he can play at a high level. (I did not say he *will*). I can say that if he had turned in two Ponder-esque performances, I would be much less optimistic.

Cassel has performed nearly flawlessly so far. As far as wanting Bridgewater if Cassel performs poorly, that happened last year with Christian Ponder being desired back on the field after a bad game by Cassel. If a fan base can want Ponder, they will want Bridgewater. It's the nature of fans...

[Purple Reign]

I see your what you're saying but it turns out the rules are actually clear on this point because that snap was actually considered a backwards pass and it was never possessed by any player (prior to the recovery and TD) so it could be picked up and advanced by any player on the field, regardless of the down or the amount of time remaining in the half.

Pelissero covered it in USAToday.:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/08/zach-ba ... ta-vikings

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I'm just pointing out an inconsistency with the rules. Yes, the rules state that a backwards pass can be advanced by anyone, but the rules are also clear that a 4th down fumble can't be advanced by anyone on the fumbling team except the fumbler. In the official stats, the qb was charged with a fumble on the play and the running back was credited with a fumble recovery. So if the official scoring calls it a fumble, then it shouldn't have counted according to the rules that govern a fumble. Maybe they need to add 'backwards pass' as an official scoring play and not call it a fumble recovery.

[Mothman]

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I'm just pointing out an inconsistency with the rules. Yes, the rules state that a backwards pass can be advanced by anyone, but the rules are also clear that a 4th down fumble can't be advanced by anyone on the fumbling team except the fumbler. In the official stats, the qb was charged with a fumble on the play and the running back was credited with a fumble recovery. So if the official scoring calls it a fumble, then it shouldn't have counted according to the rules that govern a fumble. Maybe they need to add 'backwards pass' as an official scoring play and not call it a fumble recovery.

That's the inconsistency you've discovered, By rule, that was a backwards pass so it was ruled correctly but because that same terminology doesn't get used in the scoring, it looks like there's an inconsistency in the rules of the game when it's really just a discrepancy between the terminology used in the rules and the terminology used in the scorekeeping.

Yeesh... that was a mouthful.

[Raptorman]

That's the inconsistency you've discovered, By rule, that was a backwards pass so it was ruled correctly but because that same terminology doesn't get used in the scoring, it looks like there's an inconsistency in the rules of the game when it's really just a discrepancy between the terminology used in the rules and the terminology used in the scorekeeping.

Yeesh... that was a mouthful.

It's an annoying inconsistency that the NFL needs to correct. If the player is charged with a fumble, then it was a fumble. At least in my book. If not, then the center should have a stat line for an incomplete pass. If a QB laterals backwards and the back does not catch it, is it a fumble or backwards pass? Does it go as an incomplete pass to the QB? The NFL seems to be nit picky about a lot of it's rules but this one has a lot of gray area.

[dead_poet]

Has Mauti been playing?

Not much. Beat guys don't like his odds.

Yes, linebacker Michael Mauti is on the bubble and in danger of not making the team. He received just nine snaps on defense, while rookie Brandon Watts, who is ahead of Mauti on the depth chart at weakside linebacker, had 33 snaps against the Cardinals.

During his first season as a defensive coordinator with the Cowboys in 2000, the Falcons in 2007 and the Bengals in 2008, Zimmer carried six linebackers on the roster into Week 1. It’s a different situation as a head coach with a different group of players, but it’s not a good sign for Mauti that he didn’t play much in the second preseason game. If Zimmer decides to keep six linebackers, Mauti appears to be the odd man out behind Watts, Gerald Hodges and Audie Cole.

http://blog.startribune.com/sports/acce ... ne-offense

[Mothman]

It's an annoying inconsistency that the NFL needs to correct. If the player is charged with a fumble, then it was a fumble. At least in my book. If not, then the center should have a stat line for an incomplete pass.

I get what you're saying but an incomplete pass has to be a forward pass (and, of course, a center isn't allowed to throw a forward pass). I also think a normal fumble requires possession.

If a QB laterals backwards and the back does not catch it, is it a fumble or backwards pass? Does it go as an incomplete pass to the QB? The NFL seems to be nit picky about a lot of it's rules but this one has a lot of gray area.

I think NFL rules are overly complicated but in this case, it's all pretty clear once you familiarize yourself with the various rules and terminology involved.

Here's how the play was officially scored on NFL.com:

4th and 6
(1:20) (Shotgun) 14-R.Lindley FUMBLES (Aborted) at MIN 10, recovered by ARI-35-Z.Bauman at MIN 10. 35-Z.Bauman for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Official challenged the backward pass ruling, and the play was Upheld. The ruling on the field stands.

As you can see, it's not just ruled as a fumble, it's ruled "FUMBLES (Aborted)". It also mentions that the ruling was a backward pass.

Out of curiosity, I decided to look into the terminology a little more and I found this PDF file:

http://www.nflgsis.com/gsis/documentati ... icians.pdf

3. Aborted Plays

An aborted play is a play from scrimmage during which there is not a pass or a kick, which falls into one of the following categories:

A. the ball is clearly centered improperly, meaning that the ball does not reach the intended receiver of the snap within the frame of his body or arm-span;

B. the intended ball-handler fumbles the snap from center;

C. a backward pass (hand-off, lateral, reverse,etc) behind the line of scrimmage is mishandled, or not handled, resulting in a fumble (the ball touches the ground or is caught in flight by another player.)

D. a punter who has received the snap from the center correctly but in the process to punt the ball, the ball is dropped (unforced fumble).
In each of these cases, charge a rush for 0 yards. In A, B, and D, the rush is charged to the player who receives, or intended to receive the snap from center. In C the rush is charged to the player who attempts the backward pass.

EXCEPTIONS: If the player charged with the rush recovers the loose ball and advances beyond the line of scrimmage, credit any advance as rushing yardage. If the intended ball-handler fumbles the snap from center, recovers the ball, and successfully hands the ball off to a teammate, score the play as a rushing play, not an aborted play. Charge the teammate with a rush and all yardage gained or lost on the play as rushing yardage. In both of these cases a fumble and recovery are recorded.
When the ball is clearly centered improperly, charge the center with a fumble and any yards lost as fumble yardage. On any other aborted play, the player charged with the rush is also charged with a fumble and any yards lost as fumble yardage. (Note: positive fumble yardage cannot be credited.)

... and now we should all know way more about this stuff than we ever really wanted to know.

[Raptorman]

The only thing about the whole play that I find inconsistent is once the ball started to move forward it should have been considered dead. I really don't care how it got to that point, I don't care if the lineman "intended" it to roll to the side or backwards. I can't remember the last time "intent" was taken into account on a possible penalty or play.

[Texas Vike]

The only thing about the whole play that I find inconsistent is once the ball started to move forward it should have been considered dead. I really don't care how it got to that point, I don't care if the lineman "intended" it to roll to the side or backwards. I can't remember the last time "intent" was taken into account on a possible penalty or play.

+1

[Mothman]

The only thing about the whole play that I find inconsistent is once the ball started to move forward it should have been considered dead. I really don't care how it got to that point, I don't care if the lineman "intended" it to roll to the side or backwards. I can't remember the last time "intent" was taken into account on a possible penalty or play.

In this case, I think intent is only relevant to the extent that the lineman didn't intentionally bat the ball forward. He batted it in a legal direction and the spin on it led to it going forward so it was still a live ball and anyone could advance it.

This seems to me like a case where the officials knew the rulebook to the letter and actually applied it correctly.

[Raptorman]

In this case, I think intent is only relevant to the extent that the lineman didn't intentionally bat the ball forward. He batted it in a legal direction and the spin on it led to it going forward so it was still a live ball and anyone could advance it.

This seems to me like a case where the officials knew the rulebook to the letter and actually applied it correctly.

And what happens if the situation presents itself again and the same thing happens and a ref says that he thinks the intent was to move the ball forward? When refs start looking at "intent" in these areas it becomes very subjective. I understand they called the play right. Any player could argue his intent was to push the ball back, not his fault it went forward. It becomes a slippery slope in my book. Because you and I know, not every ref would have called that play the same.

If there is one thing we can count on, it's the consistent inconsistency of refs calls.

[Eli]

To me, the big distinction on that play is that the ball was muffed, not fumbled. That's the Holly Roller rule. After the two-minute warning and on 4th downs, only the offensive player who fumbled the ball (whether intentional or not) can advance it.

[Mothman]

And what happens if the situation presents itself again and the same thing happens and a ref says that he thinks the intent was to move the ball forward? When refs start looking at "intent" in these areas it becomes very subjective. I understand they called the play right. Any player could argue his intent was to push the ball back, not his fault it went forward. It becomes a slippery slope in my book. Because you and I know, not every ref would have called that play the same.

If there is one thing we can count on, it's the consistent inconsistency of refs calls.

Where did this issue of intent come from? Did the ref mention that during the game? I haven't watched the second half yet, just highlights. Is it possible he just meant the player was trying to bat the ball backward and it ended up going forward because of it's spin, not because of the bat, which is what you can see on camera. Maybe that's all he meant by intent.

In any case, he reviewed it on replay and has said that he based his decision on the direction the ball came out of the pile when the center batted it. Hopefully, in the future, if a similar decision has to be made it will once again be made on the visual evidence.

[Purple Reign]

And what happens if the situation presents itself again and the same thing happens and a ref says that he thinks the intent was to move the ball forward? When refs start looking at "intent" in these areas it becomes very subjective. I understand they called the play right. Any player could argue his intent was to push the ball back, not his fault it went forward. It becomes a slippery slope in my book. Because you and I know, not every ref would have called that play the same.

If there is one thing we can count on, it's the consistent inconsistency of refs calls.

Since the ball went lateral or slightly backward, then the ruling for 'intent' doesn't apply - the ruling was correct and the only reason not every ref would rule that way is only if they don't understand the rule. Intent only applies if the ball was batted forward, which it was not. So if the ball had actually went forward (from the bat, not from the spin on the ball after the bat) then the ref has to determine if the player intentionally batted it forward.

For example, a fumble is lying on the ground and a player dives for the ball trying to recover it but the ball squirts out of his hands and moves forward. Now the ref has to take 'intent' into consideration. If he thinks the player intentionally tried to move the ball forward by batting it, then it's a penalty. If he feels the player was actually trying to recover the ball and it unintentionally moved forward, then it is not a penalty. You say you've never seen a penalty or play where intention comes into play, but by definition intention is always considered when a ball is batted forward.