Rules Question

**JStruds** · 12-12-2011, 11:22 AM

The safety early in the NYG/Dallas game.

Romo is hit around the 3 yard line, stumbles backwards, almost regains his balance, but then falls down in the end zone. The safety is called immediately, and no one seems to debate it - coaches, players or announcers.

I don't get it; if he was hit around the 3, and it was that hit that caused him to go down, shouldn't the ball be placed at that spot? If he was ruled to have escaped that hit, doesn't he need to be touched again to be down in the end zone?

Little help, please?

**Ravenswintitle** · 12-12-2011, 12:02 PM

plus I don't think he was touched after he went down in the end zone. I thought the same thing but the only explanation I came up with was that they were stopping the play. He was about to get sacked inthe endzone

**JStruds** · 12-12-2011, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

plus I don't think he was touched after he went down in the end zone. I thought the same thing but the only explanation I came up with was that they were stopping the play. He was about to get sacked inthe endzone

Right, that's what puzzled me. If he wasn't touched after going down in the end zone, I thought he either should have been allowed to get up, or - if the officials determined the initial contact is what caused him to fall - the ball should have been marked around the 3.

Very puzzling on the surface, but maybe just a(nother) rule I don't know.

**Ravenswintitle** · 12-12-2011, 12:44 PM

here's a clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKsCbeG_lyI

I saw an explanation that Romo 'gave up' a safety and it does look like he's telling the ref to stop it. OT - Pierre Paul was a one man wrecking crew last night

**HoustonRaven** · 12-12-2011, 12:51 PM

They explained it about 5 minutes after.

Hit caused him to go backward and fall. He never advanced the ball AFTER being hit. And since he finally came down in the end zone, it's a safety.

Think about it if it's a RB running, hits a lineman and falls 3-5 yards backwards then goes down. Ball is placed where he finally goes down since there was no forward progress after the hit.

In this case, 3-5 yards down happened to be in the end zone.

**JStruds** · 12-12-2011, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

They explained it about 5 minutes after.

Hit caused him to go backward and fall. He never advanced the ball AFTER being hit. And since he finally came down in the end zone, it's a safety.

Think about it if it's a RB running, hits a lineman and falls 3-5 yards backwards then goes down. Ball is placed where he finally goes down since there was no forward progress after the hit.

In this case, 3-5 yards down happened to be in the end zone.

I missed the explanation on TV, probably doing something else at the time.

So I think what you're saying is that there's a difference between being hit and falling back and being pushed/carried back. The difference being that forward progress is granted on the latter, but not on the former? I didn't realize that.

**HoustonRaven** · 12-12-2011, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by JStruds

I missed the explanation on TV, probably doing something else at the time.

So I think what you're saying is that there's a difference between being hit and falling back and being pushed/carried back. The difference being that forward progress is granted on the latter, but not on the former? I didn't realize that.

Neither did I but that was their explanation to it. If you're touched and that touching (hitting, carried, pushed, etc) causes all forward progress to stop AND you go down, the ball is down where the player is down. Since that occurred in the end zone meant two points.

Made sense to me when I heard it. Remove the end zone from the equation and it's a busted running play for a loss.

**Ravenswintitle** · 12-12-2011, 01:56 PM

I still say the fact that he looked at the ref and 'gave up' right before they blew it dead was probably the main reason

**RavenusMaximus** · 12-13-2011, 10:28 AM

Every time I watched it, it looked like it should have been down at the 3.

Maybe the fumble changed the spot of the down.

**RavensRock** · 12-13-2011, 11:29 AM

It made sense to me since Romo was not down yet and the whistle had not blown. Romo had an opportunity to regain his balance and keep running. But he couldn't so he's down where his knee hit which was the endzone.

**52decleetzu** · 12-13-2011, 12:05 PM

If the defender touches him in any way whatsoever and causes him to fall, the play is marked where he goes down. In this case it was the endzone.

He could stumble and bumble 10 yards backwards it doesn't matter.

**RavenusMaximus** · 12-13-2011, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by RavensRock

It made sense to me since Romo was not down yet and the whistle had not blown. Romo had an opportunity to regain his balance and keep running. But he couldn't so he's down where his knee hit which was the endzone.

Originally Posted by 52decleetzu

If the defender touches him in any way whatsoever and causes him to fall, the play is marked where he goes down. In this case it was the endzone.

He could stumble and bumble 10 yards backwards it doesn't matter.

That seems inconsistent with the forward progress rule. I've seen billions of times when the player didn't go down until he was pushed back 5-10 yards, and the ball is usually marked where the initial contact took place.

**GOTA** · 12-13-2011, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by RavenusMaximus

That seems inconsistent with the forward progress rule. I've seen billions of times when the player didn't go down until he was pushed back 5-10 yards, and the ball is usually marked where the initial contact took place.

Does the forward progress rule apply to a passer? We've all seen quarterbacks run around and eventually take a sack. The ball is spotted at the spot of the sack and not their furthest forward progress. I'm not sure that it would apply until he turns into a runner by going past the line of scrimmage and can no longer throw the ball.

**RavenusMaximus** · 12-13-2011, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

Does the forward progress rule apply to a passer? We've all seen quarterbacks run around and eventually take a sack. The ball is spotted at the spot of the sack and not their furthest forward progress. I'm not sure that it would apply until he turns into a runner by going past the line of scrimmage and can no longer throw the ball.

In those cases, the QB is usually in control as he is running around in the backfield. In this case, Romo appeared not to be. Even when a RB has the ball, if he gets hit at the LOS and by his own power, retreats and is tackled 5 yards deep, the play would be marked where he went down, but if he was hit at the LOS and fell backwards 5 yards, the balls would be placed back at the LOS.