Wouldn't/doesn't forward progress apply here?

Danno · 01-10-2012, 09:00 AM

Brees was on top of the pile and then driven backwards.

It was close but I think forward progress does apply here.

Euphoria · 01-10-2012, 09:03 AM

The reach was for good measure... he made the 1st down without the reach actually.

SaintsBro · 01-10-2012, 09:07 AM

I agree he made the first down without the reach.

But for the sake of argument, running backwards to negate forward progress, and tucking or moving the ball as you are in the act of going down to the ground, are two different things. If you are not down, are in motion, and you extend the ball over the line, then you tuck it as you are in the act of going down to the ground, you are always given the spot of forward progress. That is why this type of play happens all the time, and never gets called by the refs as being short of the first down.

You see it happen frequently with receivers, when they catch the ball either directly right on the first down line, or are running sort of parallel to the line, and FALL DOWN instantly, the official will scoot the ball forward and spot the ball where the catch was made, with the forward progress. There doesn't have to be a defender pushing them back.

The reason why people in this thread are like "I never noticed this before" or "I never heard of that rule until this article" is because that rule doesn't exist.

xan · 01-10-2012, 09:08 AM

I believe, though tough to tell from the angles, that the final spot was short of the extension, which leads you to believe that the refs marked the final forward progress based on where he wound up after retracting the ball. Plus, the moment he is contacted, his forward progress is marked. He was contacted while in the process of retracting, which would have spotted the ball beyond the required distance.

It's still a first down.

jokeray · 01-10-2012, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Beastmode

And when has a ref ever called back a first down stretch that was pulled back? I've never seen it.

I know, right? Sounds like a no win situation. he's on top of a pile, so if he holds it out there, the lions would knock it out of his hands, but if he pulls it back that distance doesn't count? Peter King is a tool for even suggesting this, and for giving Lions fans more ammunition to claim the refs screwed the Lions. Thanks Peter!

AlaskaSaints · 01-10-2012, 09:34 AM

First, line up with Sproles behind Brees.

Now;

There is NO ONE on that field who could have outrun Sproles around either end if immediately upon the snap he were shuffle-passed the ball as he goes toward the sideline. You'd get a lot more than a yard and the defensive line would still be waiting for him to come over the top.

No need for outstretched ball or quarterback to get his ankle stomped in a pile of defenders.

I want to see Brees run the ball when he has rolled out and there is open field ahead, not a pile of defenders.

I also found the call to give us the first down GENEROUS.

Alaska

Tobias-Reiper · 01-10-2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by skymike

You know I'm always saying I want the game called right, so everyone knows we won fair and square, no excuses.

I did not know this rule, and funny, I noticed it from my seat Saturday night, and thought it was cool how Brees stretched out the ball, then retracted it so no one could knock it out.

I Didnt know that technically that negates his progress, and we might not get the first down. We probably want him to know that in the future, when a defender touches him on the pile, he is down, (I think) so he doesnt have to retract the ball. Or maybe since "the plane" doesnt apply here, maybe you dont want to stretch your hands with the ball in it, period...

Anyway, King is probably right, but I'm guessing we got a "neighborhood call," maybe, like when the 2nd baseman in baseball doesnt have to really touch the base. I want to win fair & square, but this one doesnt bother me.

Interestingly, Peter King gave us credit on the fumble/incomplete pass, and said we should have gotten the ball back. crazy game.

Assuming King is right is like assuming your wife is not going to notice the lipstick on your shirt.

As SaintsBro stated, you didn't know of the rule because there is no rule covering the tuck in that situation. There is a rule that covers the player voluntarily taking steps back, but not bringing the ball back to his body when the player is launching forward.

Although, after King pointed it out, and it happened on a successful play by the Saints, surely we'll have a rule next year.

skymike · 01-10-2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Although, after King pointed it out, and it happened on a successful play by the Saints, surely we'll have a rule next year.

see: The Hartley Rule

01-10-2012, 09:03 AM	#12
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	The reach was for good measure... he made the 1st down without the reach actually. skymike likes this.

01-10-2012, 09:07 AM	#13
SaintsBro Site Donor Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG Posts: 3,650 Blog Entries: 3	I agree he made the first down without the reach. But for the sake of argument, running backwards to negate forward progress, and tucking or moving the ball as you are in the act of going down to the ground, are two different things. If you are not down, are in motion, and you extend the ball over the line, then you tuck it as you are in the act of going down to the ground, you are always given the spot of forward progress. That is why this type of play happens all the time, and never gets called by the refs as being short of the first down. You see it happen frequently with receivers, when they catch the ball either directly right on the first down line, or are running sort of parallel to the line, and FALL DOWN instantly, the official will scoot the ball forward and spot the ball where the catch was made, with the forward progress. There doesn't have to be a defender pushing them back. The reason why people in this thread are like "I never noticed this before" or "I never heard of that rule until this article" is because that rule doesn't exist. Tobias-Reiper likes this.

01-10-2012, 09:29 AM	#15
jokeray Jackwagon! Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 211	Originally Posted by Beastmode And when has a ref ever called back a first down stretch that was pulled back? I've never seen it. I know, right? Sounds like a no win situation. he's on top of a pile, so if he holds it out there, the lions would knock it out of his hands, but if he pulls it back that distance doesn't count? Peter King is a tool for even suggesting this, and for giving Lions fans more ammunition to claim the refs screwed the Lions. Thanks Peter!
jokeray Jackwagon! Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 211

01-10-2012, 09:34 AM	#16
AlaskaSaints 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 2,484 Blog Entries: 2	First, line up with Sproles behind Brees. Now; There is NO ONE on that field who could have outrun Sproles around either end if immediately upon the snap he were shuffle-passed the ball as he goes toward the sideline. You'd get a lot more than a yard and the defensive line would still be waiting for him to come over the top. No need for outstretched ball or quarterback to get his ankle stomped in a pile of defenders. I want to see Brees run the ball when he has rolled out and there is open field ahead, not a pile of defenders. I also found the call to give us the first down GENEROUS. Alaska
	HERE WE COME, TA GE' CHU!!!!

01-10-2012, 09:56 AM	#17
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by skymike You know I'm always saying I want the game called right, so everyone knows we won fair and square, no excuses. I did not know this rule, and funny, I noticed it from my seat Saturday night, and thought it was cool how Brees stretched out the ball, then retracted it so no one could knock it out. I Didnt know that technically that negates his progress, and we might not get the first down. We probably want him to know that in the future, when a defender touches him on the pile, he is down, (I think) so he doesnt have to retract the ball. Or maybe since "the plane" doesnt apply here, maybe you dont want to stretch your hands with the ball in it, period... Anyway, King is probably right, but I'm guessing we got a "neighborhood call," maybe, like when the 2nd baseman in baseball doesnt have to really touch the base. I want to win fair & square, but this one doesnt bother me. Interestingly, Peter King gave us credit on the fumble/incomplete pass, and said we should have gotten the ball back. crazy game. Assuming King is right is like assuming your wife is not going to notice the lipstick on your shirt. As SaintsBro stated, you didn't know of the rule because there is no rule covering the tuck in that situation. There is a rule that covers the player voluntarily taking steps back, but not bringing the ball back to his body when the player is launching forward. Although, after King pointed it out, and it happened on a successful play by the Saints, surely we'll have a rule next year. skymike likes this.

01-10-2012, 09:00 AM	#11
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Brees was on top of the pile and then driven backwards. It was close but I think forward progress does apply here.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-10-2012, 09:08 AM	#14
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,369 Blog Entries: 34	I believe, though tough to tell from the angles, that the final spot was short of the extension, which leads you to believe that the refs marked the final forward progress based on where he wound up after retracting the ball. Plus, the moment he is contacted, his forward progress is marked. He was contacted while in the process of retracting, which would have spotted the ball beyond the required distance. It's still a first down.

01-10-2012, 10:17 AM	#18
skymike E. Side Cholo Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Barrio, H-town Posts: 6,089	Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Although, after King pointed it out, and it happened on a successful play by the Saints, surely we'll have a rule next year. see: The Hartley Rule

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/40146-wouldnt-doesnt-forward-progress-apply-here.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Wouldn't/doesn't forward progress apply here?	This thread	Refback	01-10-2012 01:27 AM	1