The safety

[Sprfunk]

Why do you keep wanting to argue something? It’s not a conversation when your not even budging your just digging in and trying to spin it so it fits whatever f’n narrative you have in your head.


Everyone else has shown plenty of evidence that it was a safety even with the rules themselves on how it’s worded.

Gosh dayum. The constant non stop spinning and digging in to keep a “conversation” that’s turned into a “no it’s not yes it is” argument going makes this place miserable at times.

I like finding rite and wrong through peaceful discussion. Its not for everyone.

 

[LeveeBreak]

I like finding rite and wrong through peaceful discussion. Its not for everyone.

I like pointing out the right way to spell things...

 

[Sprfunk]

I like pointing out the right way to spell things...

Understood. Its definitely a weakness of mine. Being dyslexic does not help in forums. But there is no real excuse for it. I just hope I can still communicate in a semi coherent way.

 

[LeveeBreak]

Nothing wrong with discussing the rules I hope.

Was Stoud pulled backwards?

No...his momentum took him backwards and his velocity was aided at the end by Nwosu's tackle.

If you want to say forward progress counts at the time of Nwosu's contact, that does not align with the rules being disucssed:

"Player retreats on their own: If a player runs backward on their own, the ball is spotted where they were tackled, and they don't get the benefit of forward progress"

Was he running backward on his own? Yes (nullifies forward progress rule)
Was he tackled? Yes
Where is the ball spotted when tackled? Ball location when a non-hand/foot contacts the ground during the tackle (unless forward progress rule applies, which in this case it does not b/c at no time during the tackle was the ball carrier moving forward).

As previously pointed out ad-nauseum...this is a safety.

 

[Natethegreat]

I saw a red flag thrown on field. Why was this call not reviewed? I never heard an explanation as I was at the game.

 

[Trackhawk]

I saw a red flag thrown on field. Why was this call not reviewed? I never heard an explanation as I was at the game.

A ruling on forward progress is (conveniently) not reviewable as it is a judgement call

 

[Trackhawk]

It clearly wasn’t forward progress, but since it was called as such, it wasn’t reviewable.

 

[Sprfunk]

No...his momentum took him backwards and his velocity was aided at the end by Nwosu's tackle.

If you want to say forward progress counts at the time of Nwosu's contact, that does not align with the rules being disucssed:

"Player retreats on their own: If a player runs backward on their own, the ball is spotted where they were tackled, and they don't get the benefit of forward progress"

Was he running backward on his own? Yes (nullifies forward progress rule)
Was he tackled? Yes
Where is the ball spotted when tackled? Ball location when a non-hand/foot contacts the ground during the tackle (unless forward progress rule applies, which in this case it does not b/c at no time during the tackle was the ball carrier moving forward).

As previously pointed out ad-nauseum...this is a safety.

View attachment 75230

So the application of this rule goes like this for our play. The QB gets the ball at the 14 yard line. That's the new forward progress. If he is hit then, he is down there, even when knocked back. If he runs back he is forfeiting the forward progress, now it's the location of the tackle.

Tackles cannot move a player progression backwards, even if a player is moving backwards. It goes by the most forward position of the ball at the start of the tackle, so long as the tackle is completed.

This happens all the time on QB drop backs for a sack. The QB moves back, never goes forward and gets sacked. The player is thrown back 3 yards on the tackle. Just because he didn't move forward it does not mean he looses those three additional yards. It means he looses the yards he backed up himself. It's still the most forward place the ball was when the tackle starts. Not the forward progression of getting the snap.

In this case the tackle started on the one/half yard mark and forward progress is called. Not reviewable? Why. I thought forward progress didn't exist anymore?

It's because forward progress of the new spot, back 13 yards from the original spot now the one yard line when he is finally caught. It does not mean he gets forward progress to the original 14 yard line when he got the ball. He forfeited forward progress at that spot by running back at his own will. Now the forward progress is the 1. The tackle starts at the one, he falls back and the tackle is completed. The Ball is spotted on the 1.

Look, I understand this line of reason is not popular, and is seeming to get some upset. Forward progress is extremely debatable. It's not my point to bother anyone.
The OP asked a question. "Someone explain how this is not a safety?"
There you have it.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Something tells me if that was the Seahawks this would have been called a safety and 99% of us would have agreed. If it wasn’t there would have been a huge public outcry on how the Seahawks took advantage of yet again another ruling loophole/ officiating error.

 

[glenwo2]

Look, I understand this line of reason is not popular

It isn't popular (at least the forward progress stuff) because it doesn't make any sense!

Forward means FORWARD, not Backward which is where CJ Stroud was going. sigh.....

Anyway, what's the point of arguing this ad nauseum?

Hawks still won, the Refs can Eat a dick, and we are at the Bye Week.

All in all,

 

[cymatica]

Except, when he is grabbed he is no longer moving back at his own will.
You loose forward progress until you are not moving backwards on your own.
For instance, if a player falls backward without being touched he would be down by contact at that spot when touched so long as a body part is touching the ground that dictates down. However if he is knocked down by the deffender he is down where he was when contact is made.

Its a close call but because the ball is not in the endzone at the contact pushing/pulling him back its down there.

So I guess the question would be did Stoud get pushed or pulled back? I say yes he was. He was at the 1 yard line and pulled back a yard.
If you watch the video Stouds direction changed due to contact, from curving around to the right to straight back.

Not sure what video you watched, Stroud never changed direction. He was never moving forward. He was already retreating backwards before, during, and after he was touched. At no point does forward momentum apply according to the rules

 

[cymatica]

Nothing wrong with discussing the rules I hope.

Was Stoud pulled backwards?

I'll make this easy. Post the timestamp where Shroud was moving forward.

 

[LeveeBreak]

It goes by the most forward position of the ball at the start of the tackle, so long as the tackle is completed.

That is not what the official NFL rules state.

Pulled this directly from the NFL site. Below clearly states the ball is dead

"when the runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet."



Here's the rulebook. Show me where it states what you've stated above: https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-rulebook

 

[Natethegreat]

At no point was Stroud stopped before he entered the end zone. Just because he is touched by a defender does not mean that his momentum into the end zone was stopped before he entered.
Sprfunk you are wrong plain and simple. It was a safety by the rules.

 

[PhxPhin]

I think it comes down to if you think the tackle was initiated in the field of play and that tackle drove him into the end zone vs if the tackle was made in the end zone after the QB took himself there

I lean towards the later - I'm a Seahawks fan and also don't think the defender had him until they were in the end zone

If Stroud released the ball when the defense first touched him at the half yard line and three it away, they wouldn't rule that he was being sacked and forward progress was stopped

It's tough, bit I think they kicked it

I think they kicked a lot that game though - Texans fans think the refs gave Seattle all the advantages, which I think speaks to how poor the crew was all night

 

[Sprfunk]

At no point was Stroud stopped before he entered the end zone. Just because he is touched by a defender does not mean that his momentum into the end zone was stopped before he entered.
Sprfunk you are wrong plain and simple. It was a safety by the rules.

Thats fine. We all can have our own understanding. I'll just say, im expressing the way my understanding is on the implementation of the rules. Trust me, I think forward progress, and the way its enforced, is subjective. Its an easy way for refs to steer a game, and they do. I am not defending the nfl.

I'll show a few examples of the rules being implemented in the nfl and college if anyone cares. Take it for what its worth. Other than that we have our own opinions and I'll leave it at that.
Forward progress awarded even though he never moved forward. No fumble.

not nfl but forward progress without moving forward. Ref walked the line of scrimmage to the point of contact.
Notice the fan base hates it, and argues. Next we will debate what makes a complete pass. Lol

 

[cymatica]

Thats fine. We all can have our own understanding. I'll just say, im expressing the way my understanding is on the implementation of the rules. Trust me, I think forward progress, and the way its enforced, is subjective. Its an easy way for refs to steer a game, and they do. I am not defending the nfl.

I'll show a few examples of the rules being implemented in the nfl and college if anyone cares. Take it for what its worth. Other than that we have our own opinions and I'll leave it at that.
Forward progress awarded even though he never moved forward. No fumble.

not nfl but forward progress without moving forward. Ref walked the line of scrimmage to the point of contact.
Notice the fan base hates it, and argues. Next we will debate what makes a complete pass. Lol

It's not about understanding or interpretation, it's about what the rules say. Both videos you posted don't have a player retreating backwards. In those videos, the players had their momentum forcibly changed by the defender and they weren't retreating backwards, so you could technically apply forward progress.

Stroud was retreating backwards, therefore no forward progress, it's irrelevant if the defender started pulling him down 1/2 yard past the goal line. There is no subjectiveness unless it was unclear if he was retreating backwards.

 

[cymatica]

I think it comes down to if you think the tackle was initiated in the field of play and that tackle drove him into the end zone vs if the tackle was made in the end zone after the QB took himself there

It comes down to if Stroud was retreating backwards, if he was then anything the defender does at that point(short of picking him up) is irrelevant.

 

[glenwo2]

Man...this argument is still going? lol

 

[Sprfunk]

Man...this argument is still going? lol

Lol. Forward progress will always be argued. It will never end because it is so subjective.
The nfl gives a rule, we can see the rule, but the nfl tells the ref how to inforce it and we are not privileged to that info.

Cymatica and others have made some really good points.