If the QB is “intentionally” trying to throw to a WR and he gets hit or the ball gets batted down and doesn’t end up anywhere near the receiver, it’s not an “intentional “ grounding penalty.
The “non lateral”
- Thread starter BriarwoodBash
- Start date
Freebie? Intentional grounding? No receiver in the vicinity? Are we talking about the same play? Look at this picture again. Lewerke has a receiver clearly in his sight. He's making a spot throw right to the first down marker.
The targeted receiver is running a sideline out pattern. If Toney doesn't get to Lewerke, that's quite possibly a first down at the 45 yard line. Here's a pic just a second later after the receiver makes his cut just past the first down line.
There was no way that Lewerke was trying to throw a back ward pass nor was he trying to throw the ball away. He had a clear target in mind 20 yards downfield. The ball went backwards only because of Toney. By rule, it was an incomplete pass and not even close to anything else.
Last edited:
Blame it on the NCAA. The rulebook doesn't refer to laterals, it calls them backward passes.
Do any of you recall Christian Hackenberg at home against UCF, arm going forward attempting a pass, and the ball fell out of his grip, not once but twice in the game. What happend then and what was his intention and the ruling and spotting of the ball in that game?
If it slips out and he loses control before his arm begins coming forward, it’s a fumble.
No one blocked the ball. No one touched the ball excepr the qb. The defender hit the qb and the ball came off the qbs hand as his arm was moving forward and went backward. If thqt is not a fumble by rule the rule is stupid.
I think some of you are getting hung up on the QB's "intention". That was something that was added to the conversation by a poster and is NOT part of the rule. Cowbell Man was the first to reference it when he wrote.
"Hard to know how that rule is even a rule. So if the QB intentionally passes it backwards it’s a lateral. But...if he intends it to go forward and it doesn’t.....it’s a pass. But, that applies only if he’s hit. Because if he loses the ball all by himself and the ball flies out backwards while he is intending it to go forward then it’s a fumble. Because it’s like a lateral."
What the rule states is that a pass begins with "any intentional forward motion of the arm". That's to distinguish it from situation where a defensive player hits a QB causing the arm to move forward and the ball to come out. There's nothing in the rule that talks about what was in the QB's mind as he was attempting to throw the ball, which is the stretch that Cowbell Man was trying to make - and which many of you apparently bought.
Sure, that’s when it “begins,” but its hardly the end. There are already rules on the books that apply as to when the ball leaves the QBs fingertips. Just ask Trace McSorley, we beat Ohio State if he’s judged only when he starts to throw and not when it leaves his fingertips.
There’s no way a QB who fumbles was “trying to” do that either, but we don’t call it incomplete as a result. Unless you’re only referring to intentional grounding here, in which I agree with you, as “intentional” is right there in the name.
Really? Please point one out. There's no mention in the rule book about balls leaving the QB's fingertips. I also haven't the foggiest idea what you are referring to regarding McSorley and Ohio State.
Great. You can join the thousands of others who love to berate officials but don't understand the rules.
It's clearly obviously what the QB is doing here. Both the situation and the evidence supports the view that he was trying to complete a sideline pass to his receiver just beyond the first down marker.
ARTICLE 2. Illegal Forward Pass
A forward pass is illegal if:
- It is thrown by a Team A player whose entire body is beyond the neutral zone when he releases the ball.
Reference to McSorley was a key play that was ruled an illegal forward pass because he was past the line of scrimmage when he released the ball. If the rule weren't measured by when it left his fingertips, but rather when his arm started going forward, it would not have been a penalty.
Hard to believe this thread is still ongoing. At first reaction everyone watching including Franklin are angry because they don’t know the rule. At this point, what is so hard to figure out about it?
Because people who don't know the rules refuse to acknowledge that they might be wrong. They would much rather claim that the rule is wrong.
I think the reason it's ongoing is because many, like me, believe it was the right call, but a bad rule. Kind of like Jesse James against the Patriots last year. Not everyone agrees, hence an ongoing discussion.
Now, if anyone is coming in at this point and arguing the call was wrong, well then yeah, they don't read good.
I don't understand why you would think that the rule is bad - other than it happened to us. If the shoe were on the other foot, I suspect everyone would think that the rule is just fine. If you make a rule that says anytime a ball or a QB's arm is hit and the ball lands behind the QB, it's a fumble, you wind up with all sorts of bad situations. That probably happens a dozen or so times every weekend, both in college and the NFL. That doesn't seem fair to me.
People are getting caught up in the heat of the moment and not thinking through all the repercussions.
I'm just trying to hone in on what constitutes a pass according to the rules. They say one begins with the forward movement of the thrower's arm and you say that it ends when the thrower loses control although Lar says that the rules don't mention when it leaves his fingertips. I think that it'll just come down to a Potter Stewart definition by the refs.
Honestly, I’ve never seen this play before. Next time I do I will now know the rule.
I don’t know what bad situations you are talking about. What bad situation do you see occurring by making such a rule?
Last edited:
That play happens dozens of times every weekend. If the arm is moving forward when the ball comes loose it's a forward pass. If the ball comes loose before the arm starts forward it's a fumble. The direction the ball goes doesn't matter.
The pass in the OSU game was an illegal forward pass because he was beyond the line of scrimmage. Completely different situation.
I can’t recall seeing a quarterback attempting to throw a ball forward and having it go backwards. I don’t watch every single college game but I catch several of them. I must just be missing the games where quarterbacks throw the ball backwards when attempting to throw it forwards.
The McSorley play is irrelevant in this and not something I have mentioned or commented upon.
He didn't throw the ball backwards. The ball went that direction because Toney hit his arm.
Obviously that is not the point of the discussion. The discussion is about a quarterback throwing a ball, getting hit while completing the throw, and the ball going backwards directly out of his hand.
I feel like there may be a misunderstanding here. Some want to continue to insist that it was a correct call. I think that after having read the rule, almost everybody agrees with that. The discussion is about how sensible that rule is. To me, it seems completely illogical for a forward pass to go backwards.
So what if the QB gets hit before he starts his arm forward and the ball goes forward. Should that be a forward pass?
That has nothing to do with this discussion, which is solely about the play that happened Saturday. The rule is illogical. It should be simple. Ball goes backwards directly out of the quarterbacks hand, it should be a live ball.
Well, it's been the rule forever and happened thousands of times over the years. This is the first time I've ever heard anybody complain that it's a bad rule. I'm certain that it has saved PSU QBs from fumbling many times.
Thousands of times you have seen a quarterback start the forward passing motion and had the ball go backwards directly out of his hand? I find that hard to believe.
I didn't say I've seen it thousand of times. I said it's happened thousands of times. I've seen it many times.
^^^^This
This is a weird rule as written because it means the officials have to determine intent (was the QB attempting a forward pass rather than a lateral). In this particular case, it was pretty obvious that he was attempted a forward pass. But let's say there was a halfback swing pattern and he turned to throw it to him (which could be slightly forward or slightly backward) and the same hit occurs with the ball going OOB behind the LOS there. How would that be ruled? Was the QB trying to throw a forward pass or a backward pass?
Rules should be written based on what happens not on what the intent of the player was. This is a bad rule and needs to be re-written.
I don’t know, maybe we watch different games. I’ve never seen that play before.
Again, this is not a matter of whether or not thev play was called correctly. It’s a matter of whether or not the rule makes sense. To me it does not.
Last edited:
I'm really not that caught up in the heat of the moment as I don't think that play decided the game. I guess I don't notice it occurring as often as you say, or else I would be inclined to agree with you. I'll pay more attention for it this weekend.
My stance is based mainly on removing subjectivity from refereeing decisions whenever possible. So I don't like refs deciding if he was intending to throw forward or not. Certainly in the MSU instance, there was no doubt. But imagine if this occurred and an RB is a yard behind the QB when he begins his arm action to throw the screen. Does the ref assume he was going to make a good throw that leads the RB, or does he assume the QB was going to throw it to the RB at his present spot? If, instead of the current rule, we simply say that a ball going backwards is a backward pass, whether the QB intended it or not, we now have an objective measure.
.
It's certainly not illogical if the QB's arm and/or the ball is hit, which it was in this case. QB arms get hit all the time. You constantly see the game stopped for reviews about whether a ball knocked loose is a fumble or not. The current criteria for whether is a pass or a fumble is solely whether the arm was moving forward or not. What you and others are arguing is that another criteria should be added. Specifically, did the loose ball land behind the QB or in front of him. You want it to be ruled a fumble if the ball lands behind the QB. I think that's problematic.
It's certainly not illogical if the QB's arm and/or the ball is hit, which it was in this case. QB arms get hit all the time. You constantly see the game stopped for reviews about whether a ball knocked loose is a fumble or not. The current criteria for whether is a pass or a fumble is solely whether the arm was moving forward or not. What you and others are arguing is that another criteria should be added. Specifically, did the loose ball land behind the QB or in front of him. You want it to be ruled a fumble if the ball lands behind the QB. I think that's problematic.
No, not another criteria but a different criteria. Ball goes backwards directly out of a quarterbacks hand and it is a live ball. Pretty basic, really.
Honestly, I thought that was the rule anyway.
100% agree. The way this rule is written/interpreted causes more confusion and complications. This should be simple: the ball is thrown backward, it's a live ball. The ball is fumbled, it's a live ball. The ball is thrown forward, its an incomplete pass. That's it, end of story.
