The “non lateral”
- Thread starter BriarwoodBash
- Start date
What happens thousands of times is a QB getting hit and the ball dislodged while he's in the middle of his throwing motion. That play happens all of the time but, all of a sudden, people in this thread have decided that the rule needs to be rewritten so that if the ball lands behind the QB it's a fumble not an incomplete pass.
I'm wrong at times and, when I am, I gladly admit it (in fact, I already acknowledged such earlier in this thread when we were talking about the ball leaving a QB's fingertips).
The poster I responded to suggests that the play in which a QBs arm is hit causes the ball to land behind him happens thousands of times.
I ask for one incident other than Saturday at PSU.
I’m fairly certain you or he cannnot find one other occurrence.
And yes the rule should be rewritten. Several have shown that if the QB throws a swing pass and the receiver cannot catch it, it is a fumble and the ball is marked where it is recovered or marked out of bounds.
No that's not what he suggested. If you go back and review the thread you will see that what he was referring to was a remark that he had made earlier where he said "So what if the QB gets hit before he starts his arm forward and the ball goes forward. Should that be a forward pass?"
The bigger picture that needs to be factored into the discussion is that this scenario is simply a subset of the situation where a QB's arm is hit and the ball is dislodged while he is in his throwing motion. That is the scenario that happens at some point in many, if not most, games. Whether that's a pass or a fumble is currently determined by whether the QB's hand has started forward. You and others want to change that to either adding an additional criteria regarding where the ball lands or you want to completely eliminate the hand movement criteria and replace it with where the ball lands. Both WDLIon, the poster you responded to, and I don't feel that's necessary. We believe the rule is fine as written.
And you are correct about the backward swing pass. It is a fumble and that is covered under the current rule. There's no need to rewrite it.
That's not what i said. I said the pass or fumble situation happens thousands of times. And yes the ball lands behind the QB often.
I find it baffling that anybody would think that it is OK for a ball to be thrown backwards and be considered an incomplete pass. I mean, I think the reason that it’s considered an incomplete pass now is because nobody considered the situation that happened on Saturday. Now that it’s happened I would think they might look into changing the rule.
Again, I can never recall having seen a play like that.
That not what is being discussed though. It’s the defender hitting the quarterbacks arm, not the ball.
the entire thought of a backward pass being called incomplete is nonsensical. I don't care if the QB's arm is hit or not.
If nobody considered it, how is it that the rule specifically says that if the QB's hand is moving forward when the ball is dislodged, it's an incomplete pass no matter where the ball lands?.
FTR - here's the exact wording of the rule.
"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."
Clearly, they considered it and they decided it should be an incomplete pass - and I agree with them.
Also possible. If the QB is standing at an angle but still facing toward the line of scrimmage, at the start of his throw, his arm could be moving forward in relation to his body plane but not in relation to the line of scrimmage. A ball dislodged at that point could land behind the yardline that the QB is standing on without actually being deflected. By rule, that's an incomplete pass and I believe it should be.
I believe this is pretty much what happened Saturday night but it's also possible that Toney altered the motion of the QB's arm which cause the ball to travel backwards.
So the following hypothetical situation would be ruled an incomplete pass? According to the above language, it would:
The quarterback sees a running back two yards behind him, and starts to throw a backwards pass to him. While doing so, and after forward movement begins, a defender bumps his leg. The ball comes out cleanly and is not touched before hitting the ground, but lands two yards behind the quarterback.
NO. It would be a free ball.
I didn't post the entire rule, I just posted the relevant part to the discussion we were having at the moment. Here's the entire rule (which, btw, has previously been posted in this thread but which apparently no one bothers to read).
Forward and Backward Pass
ARTICLE 2. a. A pass is forward if the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official or anything else beyond the spot where the ball is released. All other passes are backward passes. When in question a pass thrown in or behind the neutral zone is forward rather than a backward pass.(Exception: Games using Instant Replay)
b. 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. 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).
c. When in question, the ball is passed and not fumbled during an attempted forward pass. (Exception: Games using Instant Replay) d. A snap becomes a backward pass when the snapper releases the ball, other than via a hand-to-hand exchange (A.R. 2-23-1-I).
I highlighted the relevant part. In your scenario the QB is not "holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone". Hence, the ruling would be that it's a free ball.
You're getting perilously close to setting a record for most posts by a single individual in one thread. The good news is that reading this thread is putting me to sleep.
You're getting perilously close to setting a record for most posts by a single individual in one thread. The good news is that reading this thread is putting me to sleep.
Let me add one more to the count.
The funny thing is that many, if not most, of my posts wouldn't be necessary if people would simply read the rule and comment on the rule itself instead of making all sorts of hyperbolic assumptions about what it actually says.
Well because he was hit that makes sense and is correct. Are you going to punish a guy for not controlling his arm direction and how far the ball goes with a 300 lb guy on your back
Last edited:
Let me add one more to the count.
The funny thing is that many, if not most, of my posts wouldn't be necessary if people would simply read the rule and comment on the rule itself instead of making all sorts of hyperbolic assumptions about what it actually says.
True dat. It's just hard to accept a rule interpretation that is so contrary to what has always been your common-sense belief of what the rule was meant to be, especially when that new interpretation is also contrary to what was your team's best interest.
Now you being cute. I thought this ball spun out his hand. The hand went down field ball went sideways/backwards which to me says "no control". I wouldn't have been surprised if it stood because it's that close to "empty hand". I thought he lost it just enough to stand with the call. Mind you I'm aware how far it traveled.
Lar I just want to add I do mostly agree with the rule. The wording in section two essentially penalizes the defense because of the word "after". It is possible for an arm to be coming forward and essentially lose that football backwards/not forward. I know it's been suggested to be changed.
Last edited:
Since I have the last two post I sure hope that's not directed at me. I dont think the call was wrong.
Well clearly an intelligent QB will forevermore just flick his arm forward everytime he feels a defender's breath on him, and sacks will go the way of the dodo bird. Line of scrimmage doesn't matter. Receiver in the vicinity doesn't matter. Intent doesn't matter.
I'm sure rule makes sense, but if qb turns 90 degrees from line of scimmage and throws the ball directly to the sideline, but behind a receiver, he is literally moving his arm forward, but it is a backward pass. go figure
Am I seeing this right?
There was a 5 page long debate? About a play - and a referee’s ruling - that was a simple common event....... that the officials ruled on correctly?
Holy Crap!
Having never opened the thread, I just assumed it must have morphed off into other topics..... and not 5 pages of nonsense.
I was wrong
Great point! I mean, why would there possibly be a 5 page, civil discussion on a football rule on this Penn State sports website? Everybody should be howling at the moon on here at the alumni BOT members in regards to proper governance!
I have no doubt that it won’t. Been on the books forever and never heard any issues with it until our fans this week.
Unless there was a change to the rule that USED to be called that NOW is being viewed different, my point was this:
QBs have been flagged for IG while in the process of being hit MANY times. Unless that part has changed, they got it right in that it wasn't a lateral, but got it wrong in that it should have been IG.
I'm not saying it affected the game. Now perhaps it was a "it wasn't thrown on the field, therefore, we can't rule it such on replay" (which nobody has brought up), but that renders replay worthless. If it's looked at, get it right.
There is a difference between throwing a ball away with a man on your back and trying to throwing somewhere have no control where the ball goes with a man on your back. Yes timing means everything
Agreed I was being cute there. It was an attempt to stretch my opposition's argument to the breaking point. I would expect the answer to that question to be "Of course not". Then my response is "what makes it any different if the on-rushing lineman hits the guy from behind". Which is what happened here. I wanted people who were arguing that it only matters where the ball lands to think through all of the situations where that could occur and what would differentiate them.
As far as losing control of the ball with your arm coming forward and having the ball go "backwards", if you define backwards as behind the yard line where the QB is standing, then most definitely yes (in fact that's what happened here). Look at the play. I don't think anyone would say that the pass ended up behind the quarterback (defined as behind his back). It went forward in relation to his body plane. When you throw a football, the direction your arm travels is not a straight line directly parallel to your target line. To begin with, you turn your shoulders so that they are pretty much parallel with the target line, then you cock your arm behind your head, which puts it at even more of an angle to the target line. When you factor in that his receiver was running a sideline out pattern, the target line of the throw was also going to be at a significant angle to the yard lines. Add them all up, i.e, the angle of the target line, the amount of turn in the QB's shoulder, and the cocking of the football behind the QB's head and it wouldn't surprise me if the nose of the football was actually pointed directly at the back end zone (in fact, if you look at this gif, you can see that. This camera taking this vid was likely in the back corner of the north end zone and the point of the football is to the viewer's left).
The "forward" motion of the hand is actually a combination of rotation of the QB's torso, the forward motion of the shoulder, and the uncocking of the elbow. The ball doesn't travel in an immediate line straight down the target line, it travels around the QB's body. The point of the football is going to rotate from pointing from the back end zone all the way around to the target line before it is released. That all happens in a fraction of a second. If the QB's arm gets hit enough to dislodge the ball at any point, it is likely to flutter in the general direction of the point of the ball which easily could be behind the line on which the QB is standing.
True, but also part of the rule is this statement (which has already been posted at least twice)
"When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone, any intentional forward movement of his hand or arm with the ball firmly in his control starts the forward pass."
In this case the QB is NOT holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone. he's holding it to pass it backwards, ergo it's not a forward pass, by definition.
Agreed I was being cute there. It was an attempt to stretch my opposition's argument to the breaking point. I would expect the answer to that question to be "Of course not". Then my response is "what makes it any different if the on-rushing lineman hits the guy from behind". Which is what happened here. I wanted people who were arguing that it only matters where the ball lands to think through all of the situations where that could occur and what would differentiate them.
As far as losing control of the ball with your arm coming forward and having the ball go "backwards", if you define backwards as behind the yard line where the QB is standing, then most definitely yes (in fact that's what happened here). Look at the play. I don't think anyone would say that the pass ended up behind the quarterback (defined as behind his back). It went forward in relation to his body plane. When you throw a football, the direction your arm travels is not a straight line directly parallel to your target line. To begin with, you turn your shoulders so that they are pretty much parallel with the target line, then you cock your arm behind your head, which puts it at even more of an angle to the target line. When you factor in that his receiver was running a sideline out pattern, the target line of the throw was also going to be at a significant angle to the yard lines. Add them all up, i.e, the angle of the target line, the amount of turn in the QB's shoulder, and the cocking of the football behind the QB's head and it wouldn't surprise me if the nose of the football was actually pointed directly at the back end zone (in fact, if you look at this gif, you can see that. This camera taking this vid was likely in the back corner of the north end zone and the point of the football is to the viewer's left).
The "forward" motion of the hand is actually a combination of rotation of the QB's torso, the forward motion of the shoulder, and the uncocking of the elbow. The ball doesn't travel in an immediate line straight down the target line, it travels around the QB's body. The point of the football is going to rotate from pointing from the back end zone all the way around to the target line before it is released. That all happens in a fraction of a second. If the QB's arm gets hit enough to dislodge the ball at any point, it is likely to flutter in the general direction of the point of the ball which easily could be behind the line on which the QB is standing.
Thanks for posting this. I only saw the play live from field level. I think my live eyes from 40 yards away looked pretty accurate. I wouldnt have been surprised in least if the call stood. Talking razor thin margin. I dont think it's a bad call.
Because the offense is attempting a forward pass not a backward pass They shouldn't be penalized by a rule that's is intended to cover situations that are backward passes not forward passes.
Are you kidding me? He was clearly throwing the ball to a receiver open at the first down marker 20 yards downfield. That's never going to be called intentional grounding.
Last edited:
Fair enough. I just find that odd. It’s like saying no interceptions should count because the quarterback was attempting a completion, not an interception.
Not really. An interception is a legitimate outcome of a forward pass. I don't think anything should turn a legitimate forward pass into a backward one, especially a rule that would say a blocked ball that bounces behind the QB is by definition a backwards pass and eligible for recovery by the defense.
Balls get stripped out of a QBs hands all the time. If it's on the way back that's a legitimate fumble, but once the arm starts forward you shouldn't be able to cause a fumble regardless of where the ball bounces. You can intercept it or cause it to fall incomplete, but you can't turn it into a fumble just because it lands behind the QB's feet.
Let's assume for a moment the rule would change into what you want. You are basically saying anytime a QB's arm is blocked even if it is moving forward and the ball lands behind the yardline he's standing on (basically behind his feet), that's a fumble.. Those plays happen a lot and that's a HUGE change to the rule.
Good to still you still popping into a thread you don’t care about. Predictable.
I would have to think about it, but I can’t think of that really happening. If I am throwing an object with my arm moving forward and somebody blocks my arm in front stopping the forward motion, the ball will naturally go forward if I lose control of it. This was a different situation where the quarterback’s arm was hit from behind and the ball went backwards.
I feel the need to say again that as the rule has been posted here, it was the correct call Saturday. But, it is not logical to the way I would expected the football rules to be written.
As I explained in a previous post. here's how that could and did happen Saturday.
As far as losing control of the ball with your arm coming forward and having the ball go "backwards", if you define backwards as behind the yard line where the QB is standing, then most definitely yes (in fact that's what happened here). Look at the play. I don't think anyone would say that the pass ended up behind the quarterback (defined as behind his back). It went forward in relation to his body plane. When you throw a football, the direction your arm travels is not a straight line directly parallel to your target line. To begin with, you turn your shoulders so that they are pretty much parallel with the target line, then you cock your arm behind your head, which puts it at even more of an angle to the target line. When you factor in that his receiver was running a sideline out pattern, the target line of the throw was also going to be at a significant angle to the yard lines. Add them all up, i.e, the angle of the target line, the amount of turn in the QB's shoulder, and the cocking of the football behind the QB's head and it wouldn't surprise me if the nose of the football was actually pointed directly at the back end zone (in fact, if you look at this gif, you can see that. This camera taking this vid was likely in the back corner of the north end zone and the point of the football is to the viewer's left).
The "forward" motion of the hand is actually a combination of rotation of the QB's torso, the forward motion of the shoulder, and the uncocking of the elbow. The ball doesn't travel in an immediate line straight down the target line, it travels around the QB's body. The point of the football is going to rotate from pointing from the back end zone all the way around to the target line before it is released. That all happens in a fraction of a second. If the QB's arm gets hit enough to dislodge the ball at any point, it is likely to flutter in the general direction of the point of the ball which easily could be behind the line on which the QB is standing.
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting PENN STATE RECRUITING BATTLES: TE Andrew Olesh- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
Football Mock Draft Roundup: Nittany Lions on track for double-digit draft picks
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
Football Happy Valley United announces Retain The Roar NIL campaign- Latest: FlyinLion1
-
