The “non lateral”

[UncleLar]

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.

You have most definitely changed the definition of what is an incomplete pass verses a fumble by adding another criteria (whether you call it another one or a different one is just semantics). Now, in addition to the referee having to determine whether a QB's arm was moving forward or not, he has to determine if the ball lands behind the QB or not. That's an additional requirement.

The current rule on a ball knocked loose from a QB in the act of passing is:

1. QB arm moving backward equals fumble.
2. QB arm moving forward equals incomplete pass.

It doesn't matter which way the ball goes so that's not a criteria that needs to be considered.


What you want the rule to read is:

1. QB arm moving backward equals fumble.
2. QB arm moving forward and ball goes forward equals incomplete pass.
3. QB arm moving forward and ball goes backward equals fumble.

You've added ball movement as a criteria that was never there before.

 

[PSU2UNC]

You have most definitely changed the definition of what is an incomplete pass verses a fumble by adding another criteria (whether you call it another one or a different one is just semantics). Now, in addition to the referee having to determine whether a QB's arm was moving forward or not, he has to determine if the ball lands behind the QB or not. That's an additional requirement.

The current rule on a ball knocked loose from a QB in the act of passing is:

1. QB arm moving backward equals fumble.
2. QB arm moving forward equals incomplete pass.

It doesn't matter which way the ball goes so that's not a criteria that needs to be considered.


What you want the rule to read is:

1. QB arm moving backward equals fumble.
2. QB arm moving forward and ball goes forward equals incomplete pass.
3. QB arm moving forward and ball goes backward equals fumble.

You've added ball movement as a criteria that was never there before.

So based on the way the rule is currently written, if the QB arm is moving forward (away from his body) to throw a backwards pass, is it incomplete or a fumble? Because if it's incomplete (which seems to be the answer) that doesn't make sense. And if the rationale was "well, he was trying to throw it forward" that's including intent which should never be included in rules (i.e. "I was trying to interfere with the receiver, I just arrived early").

Furthermore, the "arm is moving forward" argument makes sense to determine if it was a forward pass or a fumble, but if the ball travels backwards, based on physics, he QB did not have control of the ball when his hand was moving forward (otherwise the ball would have gone forward when he was hit). You cannot have a forward pass that goes backwards. It is just impossible.

 

[UncleLar]

So based on the way the rule is currently written, if the QB arm is moving forward (away from his body) to throw a backwards pass, is it incomplete or a fumble? Because if it's incomplete (which seems to be the answer) that doesn't make sense. And if the rationale was "well, he was trying to throw it forward" that's including intent which should never be included in rules (i.e. "I was trying to interfere with the receiver, I just arrived early").

Depends on which way he's aiming. If he's taking aim downfield, it's an incomplete pass (the specific wording in the rule book is if the QB is "is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone"). If he's taking aim backwards, it's a fumble. If there's any doubt, then the benefit of the doubt goes with it being an incomplete pass.

 

[no1lion99]

I disagree entirely. If a QB's arm is moving forward in an attempt to complete a downfield pass and the ball or arm is blocked and the ball comes loose, it should be an incomplete pass. If he's trying to complete a lateral, then it should be a fumble not an incomplete pass. That is the way that the rule is written and it makes perfect sense.

It's not the least bit stupid.

There will never be agreement on this situation, and I agree it was called per the rule, but the rule does leave an issue by using intent.

Example:

Scenario 1: QB "intends" to throw the ball forward but while pulling ball back loses it and it goes backwards. The ball comes out the instant his arm transitions from backwards to forwards.

Scenario 2: The play being discussed saturday.

Scenario 3: The QB "intends" to throw a slightly forward WR bubble screen. However even though his arm is moving "forwards" due to rain the ball slips slightly and goes backwards.

In all 3 cases the intent is to throw the ball forward, but in all three cases there is a different result. Two where the ball goes backwards with the same intent (to go forward) with the only difference being the "intent" vs a D contact.

So despite the intent always being the same, the one in which the D actually makes the play is the one which actually results in the worst outcome for the D. It's illogical.

 

[Connorpozlee]

You have most definitely changed the definition of what is an incomplete pass verses a fumble by adding another criteria (whether you call it another one or a different one is just semantics). Now, in addition to the referee having to determine whether a QB's arm was moving forward or not, he has to determine if the ball lands behind the QB or not. That's an additional requirement.

The current rule on a ball knocked loose from a QB in the act of passing is:

1. QB arm moving backward equals fumble.
2. QB arm moving forward equals incomplete pass.

It doesn't matter which way the ball goes so that's not a criteria that needs to be considered.


What you want the rule to read is:

1. QB arm moving backward equals fumble.
2. QB arm moving forward and ball goes forward equals incomplete pass.
3. QB arm moving forward and ball goes backward equals fumble.

You've added ball movement as a criteria that was never there before.

I don’t get how going with the simple direction of the ball out of the quarterback’s hand is more complicated than determining whether or not the quarterback was intending to throw the ball forward.

Edited to add that I have changed the definition, which is the point of what I was saying. You said that it adds a criteria which is not the case. It changes the criteria to be simple: does the ball go directly forward or backward out of the quarterback’s hand.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Depends on which way he's aiming. If he's taking aim downfield, it's an incomplete pass (the specific wording in the rule book is if the QB is "is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone"). If he's taking aim backwards, it's a fumble. If there's any doubt, then the benefit of the doubt goes with it being an incomplete pass.

Understood. But I think it's a bad rule because you are relying on "intent". Look at my example of a swing pass (above) where it's not clear if he's intending to pass forward or backwards. Bad rule.

 

[UncleLar]

Understood. But I think it's a bad rule because you are relying on "intent". Look at my example of a swing pass (above) where it's not clear if he's intending to pass forward or backwards. Bad rule.

We'll have to agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong with the rule.

 

[PSU2UNC]

We'll have to agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong with the rule.

Do you agree that there is an "intent" component to the rule as written? Can you give me an example of another rule that involves "intent" rather than "action"?

 

[interrobang]

His arm isn't going forward until after he's hit.

 

[Connorpozlee]

His arm isn't going forward until after he's hit.

Interesting. Looks like the ball is loose in his hand before going forward.
I’m still surprised that’s not considered a fumble or a backwards pass.

 

[UncleLar]

Do you agree that there is an "intent" component to the rule as written? Can you give me an example of another rule that involves "intent" rather than "action"?

No I don't agree. What the rule talks about is whether or not the QB has assumed a position to throw the ball down field which is an action not an intent.

Here is the exact wording:

"When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone, any intentional forward movement of his hand with the ball firmly in his control starts the forward pass"

 

[Connorpozlee]

No I don't agree. What the rule talks about is whether or not the QB has assumed a position to throw the ball down field which is an action not an intent.

Here is the exact wording:

"When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone, any intentional forward movement of his hand with the ball firmly in his control starts the forward pass"

Which is a rule surely intended to address the ball coming out of the quarterback’s hand and going forward, appearing to be a fumble.

 

[PSU2UNC]

No I don't agree. What the rule talks about is whether or not the QB has assumed a position to throw the ball down field which is an action not an intent.

Here is the exact wording:

"When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone, any intentional forward movement of his hand with the ball firmly in his control starts the forward pass"

OK, then, agree to disagree. It's a bad rule as my swing pass example demonstrates.

 

[UncleLar]

His arm isn't going forward until after he's hit.

His elbow has traveled at least a foot forward before Toney hits him and I'd say that the hand has moved a couple of inches forward too. .

 

[PSU2UNC]

His elbow has traveled at least a foot forward before Toney hits him and I'd say that the hand has moved a couple of inches forward too. .

But the ball went backward, correct? Which means he didn't have control of the ball when his arm was moving forward.

 

[Connorpozlee]

His elbow has traveled at least a foot forward before Toney hits him and I'd say that the hand has moved a couple of inches forward too. .

Elbow is going forward, hand seems to be in the “cocked” position. Close call, thus the simplicity of which direction the ball goes to determine what the call should be.

 

[Ceasar]

I know this has been beaten to death but let me throw out one more hypothetical. Suppose the exact same play occurred but there was in fact a RB or WR in the flat a few yards behind the LOS who catches the ball in the air (behind the LOS), and then throws a downfield pass. Is that an illegal pass since the QB's original pass was a "forward" pass? Obviously the answer would be yes, but would it be ruled that way in a game?

 

[ritaith]

I have to write that I did not know the rule but after seeing the video the rule cited does not apply. If the ball was firmly on control then the ball goes forward. Since the ball was not formed in control the ball went backwards. That is a fumble....that written we had plenty ops to win that game

 

[Chris92]

Interesting. Looks like the ball is loose in his hand before going forward.
I’m still surprised that’s not considered a fumble or a backwards pass.

Also, to be overturned, it requires conclusive evidence.

 

[Big 0]

I can’t believe this is still being discussed. I thought during the game this was an awful call. The next morning I consulted the official rule book and found that if the QB is hit when his arm is going forward, it doesn’t matter where the ball lands to be called incomplete.

The rule is: If a Team B player contacts the passer or ball after forward movement begins and the ball leaves the passer’s hand, a forward pass is ruled regardless of where the ball strikes the ground or a player (A.R. 2-19-2-I).

So if the ball landed backwards, it is still ruled forward (the hit by the defender altered the flight path of the ball). Period, end of discussion. This happens not infrequently in both college and pro football.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Also, to be overturned, it requires conclusive evidence.

If the rule were simply dependent upon the ball going forward or back, there was conclusive evidence that it went back and would have been overturned.

 

[ritaith]

Ball firmly in his hand...it was actually an easy call. The ball was coming out prior to arm moving forward which is why it went backward. The officials over thought it and misapplied the rule to the facts...the ball went backwards! If firmly in hand the ball
Goes forward - like it did in the infamous Tom Brady play from years ago vs raiders

 

[Obliviax]

Ball firmly in his hand...it was actually an easy call. The ball was coming out prior to arm moving forward which is why it went backward. The officials over thought it and misapplied the rule to the facts...the ball went backwards! If firmly in hand the ball
Goes forward - like it did in the infamous Tom Brady play from years ago vs raiders

if it was coming out before the hand moving forward would mean it was a fumble. Fumble, lateral? Not a big difference.

 

[AvgUser]

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.
.

I don't think that is entirely correct. What about the situation where the ball comes loose after forward motion?

If the QB starts the forward throwing motion, and does not release the ball until his arm is on the back-swing, then that is a fumble.

 

[AvgUser]

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.

Will you help me out and name one other time that has occurred?

 

[Obliviax]

Will you help me out and name one other time that has occurred?

It would seem to me that the first question is if the QB's arm is moving forward before the ball is dislodged. If so, it is an incomplete pass. If not, it is a fumble.

If his arm is moving forward and the ball is lodged lose, it is an incomplete pass no matter where it lands (forward or backward).

 

[wbcincy]

I don’t get how going with the simple direction of the ball out of the quarterback’s hand is more complicated than determining whether or not the quarterback was intending to throw the ball forward.

Edited to add that I have changed the definition, which is the point of what I was saying. You said that it adds a criteria which is not the case. It changes the criteria to be simple: does the ball go directly forward or backward out of the quarterback’s hand.

It's not quite that simple though, because ball going forward can be either incomplete or a fumble. Right now, a ref only has to look at "is his arm moving forward or not." If yes, incomplete, regardless of where balls ends up. If no, fumble.

Under your (and potentially my) proposed rule, there's an additional step in many instances. You say it's just "does the ball go directly forward or directly backward." However, this fails to recognize that a ball going forward may still be a fumble, if the arm was not going forward (unless you're suggesting a fumble that goes forward shouldn't be a fumble but instead an incomplete pass, which I cant imagine). So what is currently a maximum 2 option analysis becomes a max 3:

Current:
Arm going forward?

1. Yes - incomplete
2. No - fumble
​

Proposed:
Ball go backward?

1. Yes - fumble
2. No - require follow-up: Did the arm go forward?

a. Yes - incomplete
b. No - Fumble
​

 

[PSU2UNC]

The fact that we are having 4 pages of discussion about this means that it is not a well written rule.

It is possible (likely) that the refs interpreted it correctly on Saturday, but that doesn't mean it isn't flawed.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It would seem to me

It's not quite that simple though, because ball going forward can be either incomplete or a fumble. Right now, a ref only has to look at "is his arm moving forward or not." If yes, incomplete, regardless of where balls ends up. If no, fumble.

Under your (and potentially my) proposed rule, there's an additional step in many instances. You say it's just "does the ball go directly forward or directly backward." However, this fails to recognize that a ball going forward may still be a fumble, if the arm was not going forward (unless you're suggesting a fumble that goes forward shouldn't be a fumble but instead an incomplete pass, which I cant imagine). So what is currently a maximum 2 option analysis becomes a max 3:

Current:
Arm going forward?

1. Yes - incomplete
2. No - fumble
​

Proposed:
Ball go backward?

1. Yes - fumble
2. No - require follow-up: Did the arm go forward?

a. Yes - incomplete
b. No - Fumble
​

My idea is predicated off the premise that the arm has started forward. From there, it’s what direction the ball goes. If the arm isn’t going forward then there is a fumble.

 

[Obliviax]

My idea is predicated off the premise that the arm has started forward. From there, it’s what direction the ball goes. If the arm isn’t going forward then there is a fumble.

right...if arm is going forward before the ball is out of his hand, it a pass. If not, its a fumble. I think that is the problem, there is no "lateral pass intent" issue. If the hand is moving forward with the ball, it is a pass. If it does not move forward before the ball comes out, it is a fumble. It doesn't matter what direction the ball goes.

Why does this always happen to us?

 

[ram2020]

We would have given up the first down on 2nd and 19 anyway.

 

[PSU2UNC]

In case you didn't see it, this was Franklin's take on the call (paraphrase: the rule doesn't make sense).

"I was told on the lateral play, by the officials during the game and by people after the game that the rule says that if the arm is going forwards, whether the ball goes backwards or not it's an incomplete pass. That doesn't make sense to me. From the time I was in little league, if the ball is going backwards it is a lateral. So, it went from second and twenty to second and ten. A huge play in the game, I'm not questioning. I'm just saying from my perspective, it doesn't make sense to me. From the beginning of time, since I was in 65-pound football at Assumption CYO, if you throw the ball backwards it's a lateral. It was a big play in the game"
From gopsusports.

 

[Connorpozlee]

right...if arm is going forward before the ball is out of his hand, it a pass. If not, its a fumble. I think that is the problem, there is no "lateral pass intent" issue. If the hand is moving forward with the ball, it is a pass. If it does not move forward before the ball comes out, it is a fumble. It doesn't matter what direction the ball goes.

Why does this always happen to us?

Toe in/heel out.

 

[lj4heisman1]

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.

Its a horseshit rule no matter who it happens to

 

[lj4heisman1]

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.

Agreed i probably have watched over a thousand ganes in my life abd have never seen that call.

 

[lj4heisman1]

I don’t get how going with the simple direction of the ball out of the quarterback’s hand is more complicated than determining whether or not the quarterback was intending to throw the ball forward.

Edited to add that I have changed the definition, which is the point of what I was saying. You said that it adds a criteria which is not the case. It changes the criteria to be simple: does the ball go directly forward or backward out of the quarterback’s hand.

Its not. It is simple: the rule should be that if the ball leaves the qbs hand and heads backwards its a lateral/backwards pass. Much simpler to judge which should be a good thing.

 

[lj4heisman1]

We'll have to agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong with the rule.

Uncle Lar....the person who is never even the slightest way ever even infintesimmaly wrong about anything even when he is onviously wrong. "There is nothing wrong with the rule". Um you are entirely wrong. There certainly is something wrong with the rule.

 

[ILLINOISLION]

It’s ALL Toney’s fault.....a split second earlier and it’s a fumble.

Let’s face it, as written, as defined, as the play played out, the officials made the correct call. The shock is that the officials actually knew the rule and got it (unfortunately) right.

Think of it this way: the QB’s arm is hit as he’s begun his throwing motion by a defender charging in from directly in front of him and as a result of the defender hitting the arm the ball goes backwards towards either of the two officials behind the QB. Simple: it’s an incompletion.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It’s ALL Toney’s fault.....a split second earlier and it’s a fumble.

Let’s face it, as written, as defined, as the play played out, the officials made the correct call. The shock is that the officials actually knew the rule and got it (unfortunately) right.

Think of it this way: the QB’s arm is hit as he’s begun his throwing motion by a defender charging in from directly in front of him and as a result of the defender hitting the arm the ball goes backwards towards either of the two officials behind the QB. Simple: it’s an incompletion.

If the quarterback’s arm has started forward and a defender in front of him hits his arm, the ball is going to go forward.

 

[UncleLar]

But the ball went backward, correct? Which means he didn't have control of the ball when his arm was moving forward.

He has to be in control of the ball as his hand STARTS forward. He doesn't have to be in control throughout the entire throwing motion. Once his arm is hit, he loses control but that does not negate the fact that the ball was in his control at the start of the throw. Hence, it's an incomplete pass no matter where the ball lands (assuming it's not caught)