Jump to content

Mac Jones Intentional Grounding - Should it have been a safety?


Billsfan1972
 Share

Recommended Posts

He was in the process of falling to the ground in the end zone.

 

Yes his feet were in the field of play but to me that should have been called a safety as the play if completed would have been a sack in the endzone.

 

Should thie rule be changed (yes probably a 1 in 100,000 occurance).

Edited by Billsfan1972
  • Eyeroll 1
  • Disagree 12
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Dislike 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

He was in the process of falling to the ground in the end zone.

 

Yes his feet were in the field of play but to me that should have been called a safety as the play if completed would have been a sack in the endzone.

 

Should thie rule be changed (yes probably a 1 in 100,000 occurance.

I actually thought Jones was smart taking the intentional grounding there. It saved a safety possibly if the refs saw it wrong. (I do believe it is where the process of the tackle started as that’s his forward progress is the 1, so no safety.)

 

He also probably did it so he didn’t get duplexes again by the Bills D. Lol (shocked that wasn’t flagged with how the refs been lately when you hit a QB. No I don’t say it should have been just saying how they been called lately that usually gets a flag.)

Edited by PatsFanNH
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

His feet were outside the endzone.  Thats forward progress.  No its not a safety

 We all agree on that. I was making the point the he was in the process of falling down in the endzone which is where they should have marked the ball which is then a safety.

 

 Yes the call was right however to me it would've been a safety

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

He was in the process of falling to the ground in the end zone.

 

Yes his feet were in the field of play but to me that should have been called a safety as the play if completed would have been a sack in the endzone.

 

Should thie rule be changed (yes probably a 1 in 100,000 occurance.

 

Never going to get that call as a safety in that situation. The entire body and ball need to be inside the endzone and that wasn't close IMO.

  • Like (+1) 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

 We all agree on that. I was making the point the he was in the process of falling down in the endzone which is where they should have marked the ball which is then a safety.

 

 Yes the call was right however to me it would've been a safety

 

That wouldnt have mattered.  Even if tackled with the ball its still not a safety.  To be a safety he would have had to run into the endzone on his own accord then either got tackled or intentionally grounded the ball.  Otherwise its forward progress. 

 

Think of it in the same situation as the open field.  Lets say a reciever catches the ball right at the first down marker and the tackler hits him and he falls backwards a yard of the first down marker.  He still gets the first down.  Thats how forward progress works.

Edited by Scott7975
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

That wouldnt have mattered.  Even if tackled with the ball its still not a safety.  To be a safety he would have had to run into the endzone on his own accord then either got tackled or intentionally grounded the ball.  Otherwise its forward progress. 

 

Not sure I agree with that - If that was the case, then wouldn't they place the ball at the line of scrimmage any time the QB gets sacked? Or does it become forward progress if he drops back, then moves forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Billsfan1972 said:

 We all agree on that. I was making the point the he was in the process of falling down in the endzone which is where they should have marked the ball which is then a safety.

 

 Yes the call was right however to me it would've been a safety

Josh Allen was in the process of going out of bounds when he threw a td. Should that be just a dead play bc he’s on his way out? I’m not trying to be condescending but we can’t call plays bc what’s going to happen next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just rewatched the play and now I understand what the OP is saying.  Mac Jones is actually falling back into the end zone on his own accord before any contact is made by a defender.  He does release the ball outside of the end zone and before Groot gets to him, so obviously no safety, but if he holds onto it instead there appears to have been a decent chance he would have fallen flat on his azz in the end zone before being touched.  So yes, the throwaway conceivably could have saved the two points there.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Billsfan1972 said:

 

 Yes the call was right however to me it would've been a safety


Uh huh. “To you.” So what? If you know the call was right what are you even proposing here then? The rule be changed? So you want to change the rule to add even more subjectivity to its enforcement. If you had your way, then the ref crews are now obligated to determine whether or not the guy would have fallen into the endzone, regardless of when and where he released the pass. 
 

think about that for a second. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, skibum said:

Not sure I agree with that - If that was the case, then wouldn't they place the ball at the line of scrimmage any time the QB gets sacked? Or does it become forward progress if he drops back, then moves forward?

 

Because the QB drops back.  The ball is placed to where he drops back and gets sacked.  When you are talking end zone it's where his feet are at.  He didnt drop back into the endzone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of the few calls the refs got right in the game. His feet were in front of the goal line when he threw the ball so no safety. There's never any "if the play had continued..." speculation involved in sports because nobody can know what would have happened.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

He was in the process of falling to the ground in the end zone.

 

Yes his feet were in the field of play but to me that should have been called a safety as the play if completed would have been a sack in the endzone.

 

Should thie rule be changed (yes probably a 1 in 100,000 occurance.

Not a safety. His feet were clearly outside the EZ. Ball in the EZ does not matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...