Dak Prescott found a safety loophole for NFL’s most bizarre play of the week

If you watched Sunday’s game between the Baltimore Ravens and the Dallas Cowboys, there was probably a moment in the second quarter that left you scratching your head. If that was the case, please understand that you are not alone, because I was right there with you.

The play in question comes with under nine minutes left in the second quarter, with Dak Prescott and the Cowboys backed up in their own territory, facing 3rd and 10, and already trailing by 14-3. This is a critical juncture early in this game, as a mistake here could hand the Ravens incredible field position, if not a 21-3 lead.

New Ravens defensive coordinator Zach Orr drops seven into coverage but dials up an interior twist between Travis Jones and Kyle Van Noy. That design frees up Van Noy who has a free run at the quarterback, and when you add in pressure off the edges from Odafe Oweh and Nnamdi Madubuike — with Madubuike getting to Prescott first — you have a quarterback in trouble.

That’s when Prescott, desperate to avoid a safety, somehow completes a pass before crashing to the turf.

To offensive lineman Tyler Smith:

Immediately flags flew, and Kevin Burkhardt on FOX Sports brought up the idea of this play being ruled intentional grounding by Prescott and brought in rules analyst Mike Pereira for his analysis. The FOX Sports rules expert backed up Burkhardt’s position, noting that “[i]f there’s no eligible receivers in that area, you disregard that touch and you could convert that into intentional grounding.”

You can see some of that discussion here:

Had this been ruled intentional grounding, with the throw coming from the end zone it would have been a safety, and Dallas would have then trailed 16-3 and the next play would have been a free kick to the Ravens.

Instead, the play was ruled illegal touching by Smith, and a five-yard penalty was called. Baltimore declined the penalty, and the Cowboys punted on fourth down.

But ... why was this the call?

To the NFL Rulebook!

The two applicable rules here are Section 1, Article 8: Illegal Touching of a Forward Pass, and Section 2: Intentional Grounding. Let’s start with the intentional grounding rule, which reads as follows:

It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. A realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that is thrown in the direction of and lands in the vicinity of an originally eligible offensive receiver.

At first blush, this seems like a textbook example of intentional grounding. While there is a provision in the rule (Item 2: Physical Contact) that allows for a penalty to be waved off if the quarterback starts their throwing motion and impact from a defensive player impacts the pass, the sequence is off in this case. Prescott is hit first, and then starts to throw, so that does not seem to apply.

Some wondered if the presence of Hunter Luepke in Prescott’s line of sight made a difference, which you can see here:

However, it seems that the Prescott and the Cowboys may have found a way to avoid the safety here thanks to another aspect of the intentional grounding rule.

The ground itself.

Let’s turn for a moment to the illegal touching rule, which reads in part:

It is a foul for illegal touching if a forward pass (legal or illegal) thrown from behind the line of scrimmage: (a) is first touched intentionally or is caught by an originally ineligible offensive If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball.

This rule carries a five-yard penalty from the previous spot, and perhaps importantly, does not include a provision regarding a throw made from the end zone, which the intentional grounding rule does contain.

By catching the ball, Smith under the rules prompted the illegal touching rule, and not the intentional grounding rule. His catch made this a live ball under the rules — which he then could have fumbled, theoretically — and provoked the illegal touching penalty.

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

So, in essence, because the ball did not hit the ground, there is no grounding.

That was the line of thinking advanced here, in this piece from Football Zebras which sought clarification from a former official, who stated “you can’t have grounding when the pass was caught.”

If you are still confused, remember, you are not alone.

Van Noy is right there with you:

This might be something the NFL’s Competition Committee looks at this offseason.