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

[mbs]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

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.

I don't know where they spot the ball in a grounding call but at that spot, the entire ball must be in the field of play or it is considered to be in the endzone and is a safety. 

[Buffalo716]

2 hours 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

It’s not a safety …the  Tackle started in the field of play … and he got knocked into the endzone 

 

that’s completely different and never been a safety in football 

1 hour 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?

Forward progress has been the same for sacking a quarterback for a long long long time

 

Unless the quarterback is actively fighting off the sack attempt like Josh Allen… Like stiff arming and running backwards

 

The ball gets marked where the sack started … Of course a 300 pound dude is going to knock a quarterback backwards a couple yards… but it’s marked where it starts unless he’s actively trying to break the tackle 

[mbs]

It wasn't a sack and it wasn't a tackle, it was intentional grounding.

 

All I see on that page is: "if the passer is in his end zone when the ball is thrown, it is a safety." But I still don't know how they spot the ball in this case.

Edited December 3, 2022 by mbs

[co_springs_billsfan]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBear said:

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.

Agreed.  A few people have mentioned forward progress in their responses but if untouched and moving back on ones own there is no forward progress.

[MJS]

2 hours 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

Even if he fell down in the end zone, it would not have been a safety. His forward progress would have him down at the 1.

[mbs]

I don't even know how to look up how to spot a ball in this situation. Is it where the ball is when he begins his throwing motion, where it left his hand, where his feet were, framework of the body?

 

If he were contacted, wouldn't there be a sack credited? Either way, I don't think it matters. If a defender hits a qb and the qb falls backwards, the spot of the fumble (say it's 4th down) would not be the spot of the contact and I would assume intentional grounding would be the same.

[skibum]

This would make a great episode of 'YOU Make the Call'. 

[Ya Digg?]

2 hours 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

Your whole logic doesn’t make sense. You admit he is outside of the endzone, you admit that the call was right, but you still think it should have been a safety? 

[loyal2dagame]

3 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.

All this lets change the rules crap needs to stop. 

Play within the rules on the books and if you lose, or a rule causes some negative result,  take it like a man. Be a good loser and a better winner. 

[Don Otreply]

3 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.

As much as I wanted a safety, ( and I wanted it a lot) it wasn’t a safety, the little pip squeak did the right thing at that moment, damn him! 
 

Go Bills!!!

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Once the season is over I think all Bills fans need to get their eyes checked.  It just amazes me how seem to see every call some how is wrong (even up for discussion) and is questioned.  

[Stank_Nasty]

It 100% shouldn’t have been a safety. Never once did I think it should have been. Why was a thread started on this when it’s obvious as hell…

 

*checks Name of OP*… Ohhhh. That explains it. 

[Billzgobowlin]

4 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.

Seems like we have been getting a lot of this the past year...

[Matt_In_NH]

I thought it was the correct call.

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

It was probably his best pass of the night.

[billsfan_34]

4 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.

 No- he was in the field of play (not endzone) when the foul occurred.

[djp14150]

5 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.

no

 

its market where he did it

[PrimeTime101]

no. moving on

[The Wiz]

Let's ask Mcorkle what he thinks:

 

Mcorkle: "OH MY GOD GET HIM AWAY FROM ME!""

[Success]

Mac Jones is a bust.  Pats fans were going bananas about that guy all offseason - "best QB of that class!  First to practice, last to leave!"

 

He's fine when opposing defenses get zero pressure on him (i.e. Vikes game). He can pass well in an immaculate pocket.  

 

As to the OP - it was the right call.  Safeties are kind of hard to get - I've seen so many borderline like that & it always goes as a non-safety. You have to get a guy IN the EZ, with his feet and the ball clearly behind the plane.