Safety/Not a safety

[JustPherU]

Had it been called a safety it would be on some show as worst call of the week.
Not a safety Friday and not a safety today.

 

[IthacaMatt]

This is the first real good replay I have seen. I guess, according to the "letter of the law" that his forward progress is stopped at the three as he did take a step forward, but in real time I was 100% convinced it was a safety. I understand the rule but it's not like he didn't initiate reverse momentum on his own. It appears he did and retreated into the end zone on his own, or at least tò the one. Need Zagruder on this one.

I agree. The QB reversed motion to try to escape the sack. When he does that, one of his feet are in the end zone before the defender brings him down.

 

[Qbobby]

Ball should have been placed at the 1 not the 3. But contact was clearly established outside of the endzone. Should not be a safety. Look at it if it were Shrader in that instance. I think it was the proper call, improper ball placement. Should have never been spotted at the 3.

Exactly this. The referee did a terrible job spotting the ball. His job once he decides that forward progress is stopped is to find the line judge or the head linesman (whomever is on the nearest sideline) and get the spot. The line judge clearly put his hand up to signify the down is over and stopped at the one to one and a half. But the ref just grabbed the ball and placed it at the three.

 

[Doc5120]

Think about how many times McNabb looked stopped only to escape. I'm glad they don't immediately blow it dead.

I am too. Which is why it should have been a safety, IMO. He is still "live." Putting that ball at the 3 is an absolute joke.

 

[dollarbill44]

I hear you, and fair enough. Then I guess my REAL gripe is the idea that if he escapes, the play continues as if nothing happened. I think if your forward momentum is supposedly stopped, then the play is over whether you’re tackled or not. It shouldn’t be, “let’s see if he can get out of it first.” Great. Now I’m flashing back to Pitt stripping Dungey in ‘18 after he was stopped by half the team and getting driven backwards for a half hour.

The Dungey play should have been blown dead as he was wrapped up and stopped for a full 2 seconds. The difference here is that Armstrong went down from the contact without ever disengaging with the tackler. The irony is that if he had broken free, Geer was right there to drop him for a safety.

 

[RobVTX]

That was a safety

 

[Qbobby]

The Dungey play should have been blown dead as he was wrapped up and stopped for a full 2 seconds. The difference here is that Armstrong went down from the contact without ever disengaging with the tackler. The irony is that if he had broken free, Geer was right there to drop him for a safety.

And that's why it wasn't. The way it's instructed to be called is that it's the point of contact when the defender grabs the quarterback. Unless the QB breaks free completely, it's going to be the spot of contact.

 

[sufandu]

I am too. Which is why it should have been a safety, IMO. He is still "live." Putting that ball at the 3 is an absolute joke.

Not blowing it dead doesn't make it a safety. He did not retreat on his own. The defender at least partially contributed to him moving into the endzone. You see it called the same way anytime a ball carrier is spun down to the ground behind where contact is initiated.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Either whistle it dead or call the QB as a runner. He half escaped and tripped in the end zone. Had he not tripped he had the chance to run or throw it away. He wasn't tackled, he tripped. Either whistle it right away and tell QBs to fall down or let the play go, as they did, and it's a safety

 

[0.2 YNdeeR]

Not blowing it dead doesn't make it a safety. He did not retreat on his own. The defender at least partially contributed to him moving into the endzone. You see it called the same way anytime a ball carrier is spun down to the ground behind where contact ia initiated.

It's a much closer call than that. Sure the "defender ... partially contributed", the issue is when that happened ... at the 1 or in the endzone? From about the 3 to the 1 yard line, Armstrong clearly moves back on his own. Okechuckwu doesn't even get a paw on him until about the 1. So he shouldn't have been given 'forward progress' credit for voluntarily moving backwards.

Next, from the 1 to the end zone where he's tackled, it's difficult to tell if his movement is still voluntary or part of a tackle. As he tries to go sideways, he gets swung down.

So at best, this was an awful spot. At worst, it's an uncalled safety and Armstrong got a lucky break by back-peddling into the endzone, getting tackled there (a safety) and somehow starting from the 3 yard line.

 

[sufandu]

It's a much closer call than that. Sure the "defender ... partially contributed", the issue is when that happened ... at the 1 or in the endzone? From about the 3 to the 1 yard line, Armstrong clearly moves back on his own. Okechuckwu doesn't even get a paw on him until about the 1. So he shouldn't have been given 'forward progress' credit for voluntarily moving backwards.

Next, from the 1 to the end zone where he's tackled, it appears that his movement is more voluntary than part of a tackle. After he stops moving back on his own and tries to go sideways, he gets swung down.

So at best, this was an awful spot. At worst, it's an uncalled safety and Armstrong got a lucky break by back-peddling into the endzone, getting tackled there (a safety) and somehow starting from the 3 yard line.

Refs are not going to try to gauge how much of the backward movement is the offensive player versus the defensive. When the defender makes contact, they're going to call that forward progress as long has he maintains contact. So many people on here are viewing this through orange colored glasses. If it was Shrader in the exact same scenario, nobody here would be calling that a safety.

The non-safety was the correct call. Spotting it at the 3 instead of the 1 was the screwup.

 

[Cuseregular]

Bad spot, no safety

 

[David321]

ACC refs favoring a southern team vs northern team.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

He wasn't running backwards. Fighting to get free from the defender isn't the same as running backwards. It wasn't a safety. Had he gotten free from the defender while in the endzone, ran around in the endzone, then was tackled, yeah it would've been.

It's really that simple. Not sure why some folks don't get that.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

In fact, after watching again I absolutely think it’s a safety. Watch the replay again at the end from the back of the endzone. Let’s say Okechukwu whiffs and Armstrong keeps his balance and scrambles out to the left. Do they blow the play dead? Absolutely not. And if not, that means the play is still alive while he’s in the endzone. Safety.

Forward progress and tackled are two different
concepts. This is why you will see the refs have the clock continue to run when a runner is hit inbounds and then goes backwards to go out of bounds.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I agree. The QB reversed motion to try to escape the sack. When he does that, one of his feet are in the end zone before the defender brings him down.

It's where the ball is, not his feet/foot.

 

[TheHaze315]

It was a bad spot for sure, the ball should’ve been at the 1 yard line. But it wasn’t a safety, BA got hit before going into the end zone and never escaped from that contact. They got the call correct, but the spot was awful.

 

[mark79]

Refs these days seem to call safeties only when first contact starts in the end zone. I would have put it at the 1.5 or 2 yard line under that logic. That said, there was some attempt to escape which further drove him into the end zone. But they don’t often consider that as I guess it’s kind of hard to referee with any consistency.