4th and 1 Zeke Elliott Run - Correct Call?

[GSUeagles14]

33 minutes ago, Quark3 said:

The scenarios I threw out are 'close to the play in question' in the crucial sense that they, like the Zeke play, are scenarios where a runner has chosen to move the ball backwards. For some reason, you don't seem to grasp that.

As for your question, "him going back" should matter, because he chose to make that move backwards, he wasn't pushed back by a defender, which is when the forward progress rule applies. A runner should be able to move the ball, forwards or backwards, on his own volition, until a defender stops his progress, in either direction. So you might as well ask "why shouldn't it count if he's still making backward progress", which he was. The restraint was there the whole time, so it should be neither, or both, not one or the other.

where in your scenarios was the player restrained?

 

and why is it so hard to go look at the rule for you? the play is over when forward progress has ended. it doesnt matter that he brought it back, the play was over already by rule. it doesnt matter what you feel should be the case, ii dont care about your opinion on what the rule should be. i care about what the actual nfl rule is. 

[Quark3]

1 hour ago, GSUeagles14 said:

where in your scenarios was the player restrained?

 

and why is it so hard to go look at the rule for you? the play is over when forward progress has ended. it doesnt matter that he brought it back, the play was over already by rule. it doesnt matter what you feel should be the case, ii dont care about your opinion on what the rule should be. i care about what the actual nfl rule is. 

In my scenarios, the player was restrained at the 27 yard line in one case and the 1 in the other case. In one case, he was trying to move forward and was stopped by a defender, in the  other case he was trying to move backwards and was stopped by a defender. In both cases, the play ended when the player *attempted to move the ball in a direction he voluntarily chose to move it* but was stopped by a defender from doing so. In Zeke's case,  Zeke obviously wasn't restrained from moving the ball backwards as he wanted to, just as he wasn't prevented from moving it forward like he wanted to, so moving it back should have been part of the live play.

Again, different situation from the goal line, where extending the ball such that it breaks the plane automatically does stop the play. 

 

[GSUeagles14]

2 hours ago, Quark3 said:

The scenarios I threw out are 'close to the play in question' in the crucial sense that they, like the Zeke play, are scenarios where a runner has chosen to move the ball backwards. For some reason, you don't seem to grasp that.

As for your question, "him going back" should matter, because he chose to make that move backwards, he wasn't pushed back by a defender, which is when the forward progress rule applies. A runner should be able to move the ball, forwards or backwards, on his own volition, until a defender stops his progress, in either direction. So you might as well ask "why shouldn't it count if he's still making backward progress", which he was. The restraint was there the whole time, so it should be neither, or both, not one or the other.

sorry man, cant change the rule to your liking. and im still wondering if rouve seen the actual zeke play if you think your scenarios apply. when did gb defenders ever let go of zeke so he was no longer restrained? are you really being that intentionally thick? Any who, heres the rule. play was over when forward progress stopped, him bringing it back is irrelevant. its not even an argument anymore, its people saying written rules dont matter, heres what should have happened imo.

An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:  when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends; or

[Quark3]

12 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

sorry man, cant change the rule to your liking. and im still wondering if rouve seen the actual zeke play if you think your scenarios apply. when did gb defenders ever let go of zeke so he was no longer restrained? are you really being that intentionally thick? Any who, heres the rule. play was over when forward progress stopped, him bringing it back is irrelevant. its not even an argument anymore, its people saying written rules dont matter, heres what should have happened imo.

An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:  when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends; or

You keep acting like you know what the rule means, but you continue to fail to understand it. That's evident in your continued use of the term 'forward progress' when I've already proven to you by my scenarios that it applies to runners intentionally moving backwards as well, so it's really a 'progress' rule, not a 'forward progress' rule.  The rule means that the play is over when the player's intentional movement with the ball - either forward or backward - is stifled by defenders, at which point, any actions by defenders which then move the ball further away from that intended progress are null and void, and the ball is spotted at the point of maximum (from the runner's POV) progress. The rule mentions 'forward' movement of the ball because in the vast majority of cases, ball carriers are trying to move forward, not backward, but sometimes they do try to move backward, and the rule obviously applies in those cases as well. In Zeke's case, he obviously wasn't restrained from moving the ball backwards any more than he was from moving it forwards - if you watched the play you would know that - so the backward progress of the ball should have counted. 

[GSUeagles14]

1 hour ago, Quark3 said:

You keep acting like you know what the rule means, but you continue to fail to understand it. That's evident in your continued use of the term 'forward progress' when I've already proven to you by my scenarios that it applies to runners intentionally moving backwards as well, so it's really a 'progress' rule, not a 'forward progress' rule.  The rule means that the play is over when the player's intentional movement with the ball - either forward or backward - is stifled by defenders, at which point, any actions by defenders which then move the ball further away from that intended progress are null and void, and the ball is spotted at the point of maximum (from the runner's POV) progress. The rule mentions 'forward' movement of the ball because in the vast majority of cases, ball carriers are trying to move forward, not backward, but sometimes they do try to move backward, and the rule obviously applies in those cases as well. In Zeke's case, he obviously wasn't restrained from moving the ball backwards any more than he was from moving it forwards - if you watched the play you would know that - so the backward progress of the ball should have counted. 

cool story bro. as has come up several times, you dont get to change the rule based on what you think.

[Quark3]

55 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

cool story bro. as has come up several times, you dont get to change the rule based on what you think.

I'm just interpreting the rule as its written, you're the one adding in restrictions and interpretations of your own making.