The safety

[glenwo2]

I just wonder why players can spike the ball, throw it into the audience, do back flips, dance with their teammates, but somehow dunking it over the goalpost is a penalty. I don't see the logic.

I heard it was because hanging onto the goal-post messes the post up and bends it.

 

[Followthelegion]

Yeah. Yours, apparently.

The f*ck was that you just did? Reposting my quote 3 times?

Are you okay?

….. good one

 

[hawks85]

I was gonna post something similar. Yes we had a few bad plays that were frustrating to watch, but honestly, we were 3 plays away from a 40+ rout. The O was incredibly efficient most of the game. JSN & Darnold feasted on one of the best D's in the league. Our running game showed some signs at the end of the game. Replace Bradford with just a competent OG and the run game will tack 50+ yds a game.

I read a bunch of headlines calling it a sloppy win, but I'd charachterize it differently. The O operated at a high level most of the game with a handful of misteps that stopped it from being a blowout.

The media outlets can go F themselves for all I care. The god damn refs made it a sloppy win with their stupid flags on everything. The refs took away that safety and it really pissed me off, and I'm still pissed about it. I don't know why Kubiak called that Kupp pass.

 

[keasley45]

If a quarterback is retreating in the pocket, and is sacked, the ball is placed where his knee/butt/forearm touches the ground, not where contact is initiated.

It should be no different here.

If a runner is advancing the ball, and is driven back, forward progress is awarded.

If a runner makes forward progress, then turns around of his own volition and starts back to try and loop around the defense, he is down where he goes down, not where contact is initiated.

It really isn’t that hard.

That's how I see it and the 'retreating' scenario you describe is called exactly that way every other game, all Sunday, Monday and Thursday long.

If a player was intentionally trying to give away a safety to run off clock and protect a lead at the end of a game and as he is about to cross the goal line is tackled in the process of coming to the ground and his knee touched n the endzone with the ball completely in the endzone, it would be a safety 100% The refs wouldn't even think twice about it.

 

[Sprfunk]

Forward progress doesn't apply to a player running backwards even if he's escaping. Forward progress applies to a player running towards the opponents end zone who then has their momentum stopped by the defense

By that logic you can pick up a retreating player and run him back 99 yards for a touch back.

The thing is running backwards does back up the forward progress. But being caught stops the progress at that spot.

 

[MORGULON]

Just going to come back on this. It appears I’m wrong. Forward progress is only granted when you are making movements towards the opposition end zone. If a tackle occurs with you retreating, the ball should be marked where it is when the player is down.

Apologies, every day is a school day!

This is the way I saw it. Stroud wasn't moving forward . I've seen receivers that ran forward , then came back and got caught . The ball was spotted where they were tackled .

I guess it's different this time?

 

[cymatica]

By that logic you can pick up a retreating player and run him back 99 yards for a touch back.

The thing is running backwards does back up the forward progress. But being caught stops the progress at that spot.

No by that logic you can't do that. Besides being whistled dead, If you pick up a retreating player then he isn't retreating anymore and you are forcefully stopping his momentum either direction at that point.

 

[Sprfunk]

No by that logic you can't do that. Besides being whistled dead, If you pick up a retreating player then he isn't retreating anymore and you are forcefully stopping his momentum either direction at that point.

Perfect. That's exactly the point.
When the qb was hit, thats the point of forward progress so long as he is brought down and does not escape. If he escapes and runs back again he is backing up forward progress. Then he has a new forward progress (further back) until he is stopped again.
So its not a safty because he was hit before the goal line. He was down at the half yard mark.

Its the exact same this with a running back or anyone advancing the ball (backward or forward). Its the same way if you catch a ball beyond the 1st down sticks and are hit back behind the line and tackled there its still a first.
Now if you catch the ball, run back behind the line and are hit there forward progression puts you behind the line without the first down.

Otherwise you could hit a player past the sticks, drive him back 10 yards take away the first.

 

[Sprfunk]

So our guy touches him before he gets in the endzone but he stays up and throws it. Why wasn’t he down then?
Plus the got to do two plays over. We stopped them both times. One was a procedure call the other a clock issue. So blow the play dead if it’s not going to count. People could get hurt playing when it doesn’t count.

Because he was not brought down. Now if they hold him for a few seconds the ref may blow the play dead.
But, and this is a big but, If he goes down they will spot the ball at where the first contact was made so long as the runner never escaped the sack.
For instance, a qb takes a 3 step drop and is hit, and the tackle is 3 yards further back, they will give him forward progress to the original hit location.

 

[LeveeBreak]

Perfect. That's exactly the point.
When the qb was hit, thats the point of forward progress so long as he is brought down and does not escape. If he escapes and runs back again he is backing up forward progress. Then he has a new forward progress (further back) until he is stopped again.
So its not a safty because he was hit before the goal line. He was down at the half yard mark.

Its the exact same this with a running back or anyone advancing the ball (backward or forward). Its the same way if you catch a ball beyond the 1st down sticks and are hit back behind the line and tackled there its still a first.
Now if you catch the ball, run back behind the line and are hit there forward progression puts you behind the line without the first down.

Otherwise you could hit a player past the sticks, drive him back 10 yards take away the first.

If you hit the player after he is past the 1st down mark, fail to take him down, and he escapes backward taking the ball behind the sticks, then tackled with the ball remaining behind the mark...that would not be a 1st down, it would be placed where then ball was when the non-hand/foot body part touches the ground.

In this case, he was retreating in an attempt to escape, was not forced to the ground yet by a defender, then his momentum and the D-player tackling him took the ball behind the goal line, then his knee touched down as the ball remained behind the goal line.

That is a safety.

 

[Sprfunk]

If you hit the player after he is past the 1st down mark, fail to take him down, and he escapes backward taking the ball ball behind the sticks, then tackled with the ball remaining behind the mark...that would not be a 1st down, it would be placed where then ball was when the non-hand/foot body part touches the ground.

In this case, he was retreating in an attempt to escape, was not forced to the ground yet by a defender, then his momentum and the D-player tackling him took the ball behind the goal line, then his knee touched down as the ball remained behind the goal line.

That is a safety.

First paragraph is exactly what im saying.

Second paragraph is missing the point of the rule. If a player is retreating his forward process is moving backward. When contacted and brought down the forward progress is stopped at the furthest point forward at the start of the tackle.

For instance a runner runs backward to the 5 yard line, gets hit and wrapped up, then the deffender pushes him 5 yards back during the tackle. Where would he be spotted. The 5 or the goal line?

 

[cymatica]

Perfect. That's exactly the point.
When the qb was hit, thats the point of forward progress so long as he is brought down and does not escape. If he escapes and runs back again he is backing up forward progress. Then he has a new forward progress (further back) until he is stopped again.
So its not a safty because he was hit before the goal line. He was down at the half yard mark.

Its the exact same this with a running back or anyone advancing the ball (backward or forward). Its the same way if you catch a ball beyond the 1st down sticks and are hit back behind the line and tackled there its still a first.
Now if you catch the ball, run back behind the line and are hit there forward progression puts you behind the line without the first down.

Otherwise you could hit a player past the sticks, drive him back 10 yards take away the first.

Wrong. Look up the rules, they specifically state forward progress does not apply to a player escaping backwards, which is what Stroud was doing. The rules also state if forward momentum is mark when the defense forcibly stops the forward momentum of the player running towards the opponents end zone

There is no question not only was Stroud escaping backwards when he was first touched, but the defender never stopped his momentum. You keep using examples that are completely different situations

 

[cymatica]

First paragraph is exactly what im saying.

Second paragraph is missing the point of the rule. If a player is retreating his forward process is moving backward. When contacted and brought down the forward progress is stopped at the furthest point forward at the start of the tackle.

For instance a runner runs backward to the 5 yard line, gets hit and wrapped up, then the deffender pushes him 5 yards back during the tackle. Where would he be spotted. The 5 or the goal line?

Dude, read the rules. There is no forward progress for a player retreating backwards, period. The defender has to physically stop the momentum of the player heading towards the opponents end zone. If a defender touches a player retreating backwards and he falls down 2 yards behind where he is touched, the ball is not marked where he was touched, ever. That is not the rule.

 

[LeveeBreak]

First paragraph is exactly what im saying.

Second paragraph is missing the point of the rule. If a player is retreating his forward process is moving backward. When contacted and brought down the forward progress is stopped at the furthest point forward at the start of the tackle.

For instance a runner runs backward to the 5 yard line, gets hit and wrapped up, then the deffender pushes him 5 yards back during the tackle. Where would he be spotted. The 5 or the goal line?

Your example is different than what happened. In the example, the defender pushes him backward, In that case I agree, contact is foward progress and the ball moves back up to that spot. When the ball carrier is moving backward under their own power, the spot is where the ball is when their non-foot/hand body part touches the ground.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

 

[Sprfunk]

Your example is different than what happened. In the example, the defender pushes him backward, In that case I agree, contact is foward progress and the ball moves back up to that spot. When the ball carrier is moving backward under their own power, the spot is where the ball is when their non-foot/hand body part touches the ground.

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.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Just ANOTHER instance of refs and the league trying to keep a team in the game in what's about to be become a blowout. This has happened to the Seahawks SEVERAL times over the years. And it's not just us. This crap is pretty common in prime-time games. Annoying af.

 

[Natethegreat]

I can't believe we have guys trying to argue this still. Look at the video evidence. It's an obvious safety. Are you arguing just to be contrarian?

 

[Sprfunk]

I can't believe we have guys trying to argue this still. Look at the video evidence. It's an obvious safety. Are you arguing just to be contrarian?

Nothing wrong with discussing the rules I hope.

Was Stoud pulled backwards?

 

[Exittium]

Nothing wrong with discussing the rules I hope.

Was Stoud pulled backwards?

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.