Dak Prescott discovered a security loophole for NFL’s most weird play of the week

In case you watched Sunday’s recreation between the Baltimore Ravens and the Dallas Cowboys, there was in all probability a second within the second quarter that left you scratching your head. If that was the case, please perceive that you’re not alone, as a result of I used to be proper there with you.

The play in query comes with underneath 9 minutes left within the second quarter, with Dak Prescott and the Cowboys backed up in their very own territory, going through third and 10, and already trailing by 14-3. This can be a important juncture early on this recreation, as a mistake right here may hand the Ravens unimaginable discipline place, if not a 21-3 lead.

New Ravens defensive coordinator Zach Orr drops seven into protection however dials up an inside twist between Travis Jones and Kyle Van Noy. That design frees up Van Noy who has a free run on the quarterback, and while you add in strain off the perimeters from Odafe Oweh and Nnamdi Madubuike — with Madubuike attending to Prescott first — you could have a quarterback in hassle.

That’s when Prescott, determined to keep away from a security, by some means completes a cross earlier than crashing to the turf.

To offensive lineman Tyler Smith:

Instantly flags flew, and Kevin Burkhardt on FOX Sports activities introduced up the concept of this play being dominated intentional grounding by Prescott and introduced in guidelines analyst Mike Pereira for his evaluation. The FOX Sports activities guidelines professional backed up Burkhardt’s place, noting that “[i]f there’s no eligible receivers in that space, you disregard that contact and you possibly can convert that into intentional grounding.”

You possibly can see a few of that dialogue right here:

Had this been dominated intentional grounding, with the throw coming from the top zone it will have been a security, and Dallas would have then trailed 16-3 and the following play would have been a free kick to the Ravens.

As a substitute, the play was dominated unlawful touching by Smith, and a five-yard penalty was known as. Baltimore declined the penalty, and the Cowboys punted on fourth down.

However … why was this the decision?

To the NFL Rulebook!

The 2 relevant guidelines listed here are Part 1, Article 8: Unlawful Touching of a Ahead Go, and Part 2: Intentional Grounding. Let’s begin with the intentional grounding rule, which reads as follows:

It’s a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, going through an imminent lack of yardage due to strain from the protection, throws a ahead cross and not using a sensible probability of completion. A practical probability of completion is outlined as a cross that’s thrown within the route of and lands within the neighborhood of an initially eligible offensive receiver.

At first blush, this looks like a textbook instance of intentional grounding. Whereas there’s a provision within the rule (Merchandise 2: Bodily Contact) that enables for a penalty to be waved off if the quarterback begins their throwing movement and affect from a defensive participant impacts the cross, the sequence is off on this case. Prescott is hit first, after which begins to throw, so that doesn’t appear to use.

Some questioned if the presence of Hunter Luepke in Prescott’s line of sight made a distinction, which you’ll see right here:

Nonetheless, plainly the Prescott and the Cowboys might have discovered a solution to keep away from the protection right here thanks to a different side of the intentional grounding rule.

The bottom itself.

Let’s flip for a second to the unlawful touching rule, which reads partially:

It’s a foul for unlawful touching if a ahead cross (authorized or unlawful) thrown from behind the road of scrimmage: (a) is first touched deliberately or is caught by an initially ineligible offensive If such a cross is caught, it’s a reside ball.

This rule carries a five-yard penalty from the earlier spot, and maybe importantly, doesn’t embrace a provision relating to a throw made out of the top zone, which the intentional grounding rule does include.

By catching the ball, Smith underneath the principles prompted the unlawful touching rule, and never the intentional grounding rule. His catch made this a reside ball underneath the principles — which he then may have fumbled, theoretically — and provoked the unlawful touching penalty.

Had the guard not made the catch, or it deflected off him and was incomplete, then the intentional grounding dialogue would have come into play. That will have then touched off a debate over whether or not Prescott’s throw had a practical probability of being caught by Luepke.

So, in essence, as a result of the ball didn’t hit the bottom, there is no such thing as a grounding.

That was the road of considering superior right here, on this piece from Soccer Zebras which sought clarification from a former official, who acknowledged “you’ll be able to’t have grounding when the cross was caught.”

In case you are nonetheless confused, keep in mind, you aren’t alone.

Van Noy is correct there with you:

This may be one thing the NFL’s Competitors Committee seems to be at this offseason.