ADVERTISEMENT

The “non lateral”

I don’t know. The ball went backwards. It really should be (and before Saturday, thought it was) as simple as that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC
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).

2wg53d1.gif


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.

I was with you until you put this clip up. I think they blew the call.

Here's the section of the Rule:

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 or arm 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).

I disagree that forward movement had begun when Toney contacted the passer. His arm was not, on this clip, moving forward at all. His torso is completely irrelevant. His hand or arm must intentionally move forward with firm possession of the ball. Here, at best it was neutral to the plane but really was still going back. I've seen the exact play dozens of times where the ball is hit at that point and it's a clear fumble.

I will be seeing a retired Power 5 referee today. Will be interesting to get his take on this.
 
I don’t know. The ball went backwards. It really should be (and before Saturday, thought it was) as simple as that.
If you need a real laugh, the Lewerke "lateral" in the 3rd quarter that he missed his RB and went oob towards his bench went forward. In other words, he tries to pass and it goes backwards and he tries to pitch on an option and it goes forward. I guess that why they call it an ugly win.
 
I was with you until you put this clip up. I think they blew the call.

Here's the section of the Rule:

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 or arm 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).

I disagree that forward movement had begun when Toney contacted the passer. His arm was not, on this clip, moving forward at all. His torso is completely irrelevant. His hand or arm must intentionally move forward with firm possession of the ball. Here, at best it was neutral to the plane but really was still going back. I've seen the exact play dozens of times where the ball is hit at that point and it's a clear fumble.

I will be seeing a retired Power 5 referee today. Will be interesting to get his take on this.

The way that I see it, his hand is moving forward. Clearly he has a firm grip because he threw it 20 yards sideways out of bounds - that would have been pretty hard to do without a good grip on the ball. And if his hand was still going backward when the arm was hit and the ball was dislodged the ball would have fallen behind his back, or dropped straight to the ground.
 
1) this topic may have been beaten to death, but perhaps not yet to a pulp
2) kudos to the perseverance of the participants, especially UncleLar without which this thread would not be nearing an epic level (figuratively as well as literally)
3) I never thought anything would rival the infamous Michigan heel - toe debate, but clearly i was wrong
4) this is so reminiscent of requirements and testing scenarios at work.

A) the rule refers to Player team B, so is the rule invalid if it's a Team A player involved in the contact?
B) does it matter that Team B player contacts the player AFTER forward movement begins? What if the contact occurs BEFORE forward movement begins? Would the rule change if you deleted the words preceding "after forward movement..."?

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).
 
1) this topic may have been beaten to death, but perhaps not yet to a pulp
2) kudos to the perseverance of the participants, especially UncleLar without which this thread would not be nearing an epic level (figuratively as well as literally)
3) I never thought anything would rival the infamous Michigan heel - toe debate, but clearly i was wrong
4) this is so reminiscent of requirements and testing scenarios at work.

A) the rule refers to Player team B, so is the rule invalid if it's a Team A player involved in the contact?
B) does it matter that Team B player contacts the player AFTER forward movement begins? What if the contact occurs BEFORE forward movement begins? Would the rule change if you deleted the words preceding "after forward movement..."?

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).

In my opinion, in A it makes no difference. It's the forward motion of the hand that makes it a forward pass. No matter who it is that hits the arm, it should still be a forward pass. What I think would be an even more interesting question would be what if the QB loses control of the ball without anyone touching him. Personally, I believe it should still be a forward pass but I wouldn't be surprised if a ref ruled differently.

For B, I would say that the ruling would depend on when the QB lost control of the ball. If he still had a firm grip on the ball when his arm motion started forward, then it should be a forward pass. If he had begun to lose control, then it should be a fumble.

I'm have a hard time figuring out what the exact wording would be if the words preceding "after forward movement" were deleted, so I can't answer your question.

In either case, it wouldn't hurt if the rule was clarified.
 
One more observation regarding this play and that's in regard to how far offline Lewerke pass was. I have a screen snap which shows Lewerke's targeted receiver on the sideline just inside the first down marker which was at the 45 yard line (for some reason, this site refuses to display my upload but you can see the receiver running his route in this pic that I was able to upload. For purposes of discussion let's say he was at the 47 yard line (he was actually about the 46 and a half line)

MSU.jpg


In this picture you can see Lewerke straddling the hash mark at the 27 yard line as he attempts the throw.. That means his target was almost exactly 20 yards downfield. Coincidentally, in college football the hash marks are exactly 20 yards from the sideline. The sideline and the 27 yard line thus form a right angle. High school geometry says because the two sides of the right angle triangle are equal then the angle that Lewerke is throwing the ball at is 45 degrees to the yard line..

That means when Lewerke's arm was hit, the ball only has to be defected greater than 45 degrees for it to land behind the 27 yard line (in the video replay it looks like the ball lands around the 26 yard line). That's not a whole lot of deflection. It's not like the ball headed straight backwards. I'd say that it isn't the least bit atypical for a ball to be deflected 45 degrees or more when a QB's arm is hit.

The reason that I'm making this observation is that I have seen people say the ball couldn't go forward out of his hand if it landed behind him. But Lewerke's arm could be moving forward (defined in relation to the plane of his body) and the ball could leave his hand going forward (again defined in relation to his body) yet land behind the 28 yard line simply by exiting his hand at an angle to the yard marker of less than 45 degrees.
 
One more observation regarding this play and that's in regard to how far offline Lewerke pass was. I have a screen snap which shows Lewerke's targeted receiver on the sideline just inside the first down marker which was at the 45 yard line (for some reason, this site refuses to display my upload but you can see the receiver running his route in this pic that I was able to upload. For purposes of discussion let's say he was at the 47 yard line (he was actually about the 46 and a half line)

MSU.jpg


In this picture you can see Lewerke straddling the hash mark at the 27 yard line as he attempts the throw.. That means his target was almost exactly 20 yards downfield. Coincidentally, in college football the hash marks are exactly 20 yards from the sideline. The sideline and the 27 yard line thus form a right angle. High school geometry says because the two sides of the right angle triangle are equal then the angle that Lewerke is throwing the ball at is 45 degrees to the yard line..

That means when Lewerke's arm was hit, the ball only has to be defected greater than 45 degrees for it to land behind the 27 yard line (in the video replay it looks like the ball lands around the 26 yard line). That's not a whole lot of deflection. It's not like the ball headed straight backwards. I'd say that it isn't the least bit atypical for a ball to be deflected 45 degrees or more when a QB's arm is hit.

The reason that I'm making this observation is that I have seen people say the ball couldn't go forward out of his hand if it landed behind him. But Lewerke's arm could be moving forward (defined in relation to the plane of his body) and the ball could leave his hand going forward (again defined in relation to his body) yet land behind the 28 yard line simply by exiting his hand at an angle to the yard marker of less than 45 degrees.

Wow, that’s a lot of words. I’ll use less than that. If the ball leaves the quarterback's hand directly and goes backwards, it should either be a fumble or a backwards pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Anderson
Wow, that’s a lot of words. I’ll use less than that. If the ball leaves the quarterback's hand directly and goes backwards, it should either be a fumble or a backwards pass.
Agreed. That would simplify the rule greatly.

Also, if anyone can point out another scenario where it matters what a player is trying to do (in this case throw the ball forward) rather what he actually does (in this case throw the ball backward), please point it out to us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Anderson
Agreed. That would simplify the rule greatly.

Also, if anyone can point out another scenario where it matters what a player is trying to do (in this case throw the ball forward) rather what he actually does (in this case throw the ball backward), please point it out to us.

Agree...and I think the directional nature of the pass is the "tell" on whether the ball was a fumble or an incomplete pass. If it was hit so early, the ball was not moving forward but laterally, it is a fumble. If it was moving forward, its a pass. If the flight of the ball hits an arm or helmet to cause it to go lateral, that is an incomplete pass.
 
Wow, that’s a lot of words. I’ll use less than that. If the ball leaves the quarterback's hand directly and goes backwards, it should either be a fumble or a backwards pass.

Define "goes backward". I would argue that, in this case, the ball did not go backward. The passer was facing toward the neutral zone and the ball came out forward relative to the plane of his body.
 
Define "goes backward". I would argue that, in this case, the ball did not go backward. The passer was facing toward the neutral zone and the ball came out forward relative to the plane of his body.
If you watch the video, the ball ends up closer to the MSU endzone than it started. That is, by definition, backwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvgUser
Arm moving forward irregardless of direction of ball flight even if ball flight is backwards and not caught is an incompletion. This was the explanation which was an interpretation of rule I was unfamiliar with
If so, that's a ridiculous rule.
 
Agreed. That would simplify the rule greatly.

Also, if anyone can point out another scenario where it matters what a player is trying to do (in this case throw the ball forward) rather what he actually does (in this case throw the ball backward), please point it out to us.
Sure...intentional grounding.

Also, kicking or batting a live ball.
 
If you watch the video, the ball ends up closer to the MSU endzone than it started. That is, by definition, backwards.

I understand where the ball wound up and I agree that is. BY ONE DEFINITION, backward. The reason that this is an issue is that within this rule forward is used to mean different things. The rule references the player's hand moving forward. In this case, forward means in relation to the plane of the player's body. I wanted to be sure that backward wasn't being used in relationship to the plane of the player's body.
 
Sure...intentional grounding.

Also, kicking or batting a live ball.
Intentional grounding has non-arbitrary guidelines (i.e. receiver must be in area or out of pocket/pass goes beyond LOS) more than just "what did the QB intend to do"

As for intention kicking/batting of a live ball, if you tried to kick or bat a live ball and didn't, I don't believe that a penalty. So again, it's what actually occurs, not what were you trying to have occur.
 
I understand where the ball wound up and I agree that is. BY ONE DEFINITION, backward. The reason that this is an issue is that within this rule forward is used to mean different things. The rule references the player's hand moving forward. In this case, forward means in relation to the plane of the player's body. I wanted to be sure that backward wasn't being used in relationship to the plane of the player's body.
Sigh.

Do I really need to invoke Physics 101 and show you the vector analysis here?

If you assume that the longitudinal axis of the field (endzone to endzone) is the x axis and when a team is gaining positive yardage the vector in the X direction is positive, then any negative value (for ball movement) is, by definition, backwards.
 
Intentional grounding has non-arbitrary guidelines (i.e. receiver must be in area or out of pocket/pass goes beyond LOS) more than just "what did the QB intend to do"

As for intention kicking/batting of a live ball, if you tried to kick or bat a live ball and didn't, I don't believe that a penalty. So again, it's what actually occurs, not what were you trying to have occur.
As for the first one, how is this any different...with grounding while in the pocket, the ref, by seeing if there is a receiver in the area, determines if the QB was trying to intentionally throw the ball away. In this play, the ref is determining if the QB was intentionally throwing to a receiver.

As for the second...if a player dives at a ball and bats it or kicks it away, the officials must determine whether the bat/kick was intentional or accidental.
 
Also, if anyone can point out another scenario where it matters what a player is trying to do (in this case throw the ball forward) rather what he actually does (in this case throw the ball backward), please point it out to us.

I keep seeing INTENT brought up in this discussion. As I pointed out before, the rule does not mention intent at all. It defines two criteria to determine whether the ball was a forward or backward pass.

One, the player must be holding the ball in a position to throw it towards the neutral zone. Two, the player's hand must firmly gripping the ball and have moved forward (in relation to the plane of his body, not in relation to the yardline). It those actions happen, it's a forward pass.

Here's the actual rule again (posted, I think, for at least the fourth time)

"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".

Nothing about intent in there at all.
 
Last edited:
I keep seeing INTENT brought up in this discussion. As I pointed out before, the rule does not mention intent at all. It defines two criteria to determine whether the ball was a forward or backward pass.

One, the player must be holding the ball in a position to throw it towards the neutral zone. Two, the player's hand must firmly gripping the ball and have moved forward (in relation to the plane of his body, not in relation to the yardline). It those actions happen, it's a forward pass.
It is impossible for his the net force of his hand moving forward to result in a backward pass. The pass went backwards. Therefore, it was a backward pass. And if the rules don't make that clear, it's a poorly written rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
Sigh.

Do I really need to invoke Physics 101 and show you the vector analysis here?

If you assume that the longitudinal axis of the field (endzone to endzone) is the x axis and when a team is gaining positive yardage the vector in the X direction is positive, then any negative value (for ball movement) is, by definition, backwards.

Of course not. I simply want people to understand that forward and backward are used in two different manners in this discussion.
 
It is impossible for his the net force of his hand moving forward to result in a backward pass. The pass went backwards. Therefore, it was a backward pass. And if the rules don't make that clear, it's a poorly written rule.

It most definitely can - because in the context of this rule, forward motion of the hand is NOT defined in relation to the yard line. If Lewerke had turned to face his own end zone and thrown the ball out of the back of the end zone, the motion of his hand would have been forward (in relation to his body) but the pass would have been backward
 
It most definitely can - because in the context of this rule, forward motion of the hand is NOT defined in relation to the yard line. If Lewerke had turned to face his own end zone and thrown the ball out of the back of the end zone, the motion of his hand would have been forward (in relation to his body) but the pass would have been backward
Right, which is why this is a poorly written rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
Define "goes backward". I would argue that, in this case, the ball did not go backward. The passer was facing toward the neutral zone and the ball came out forward relative to the plane of his body.

The ball went backwards. I mean, I don’t know how to parse the words enough to make it clear. I’m not a rule writer. Somebody earlier seemed to state it well. The ball left his hand and it ended up closer to his own end zone than the opposing end zone. At no point was the ball moving toward the opposing end zone after it left his hand. Instead, it moved towards his own end zone.
I’m not sure if you’ve stated this or not so forgive me if you have already addressed it. Does it matter to you whether the quarterback’s arm was hit or not?
 
Last edited:
It most definitely can - because in the context of this rule, forward motion of the hand is NOT defined in relation to the yard line. If Lewerke had turned to face his own end zone and thrown the ball out of the back of the end zone, the motion of his hand would have been forward (in relation to his body) but the pass would have been backward
What do you believe is the interpretation of the word “forward” In this rule and context? Is it in relation to the body, or in relation to the line of scrimmage?

If you say the line of scrimmage, the he did throw, under control, behind the yard line he was positioned.

If you say the body, then why is a dropped “lateral” a fumble if the web is hit while marking the play?
 
The ball went backwards. I mean, I don’t know how to parse the words enough to make it clear. I’m not a rule writer. Somebody earlier seemed to state it well. The ball left his hand and it ended up closer to his own end zone than the opposing end zone. At no point was the ball moving toward the opposing end zone after it left his hand. Instead, it moved towards his own end zone.
I’m not sure if you’ve stated this or not so forgive me if you have already addressed it. Does it matter to you whether the quarterback’s arm was hit or not?

I'm trying to get posters to understand the difference between backwards relative to the yard line and backwards relative to the plane of the body. It's apparent to me that a few are confusing the two definitions of forward and when someone uses the backward term, I want to be sure that I understand the correct context.
What do you believe is the interpretation of the word “forward” In this rule and context? Is it in relation to the body, or in relation to the line of scrimmage?

If you say the line of scrimmage, the he did throw, under control, behind the yard line he was positioned.

If you say the body, then why is a dropped “lateral” a fumble if the web is hit while marking the play?

It is the body. A dropped "lateral" is a fumble because the throwing player has failed to meet the first criteria of the rule (and I'm now posting it for about the fifth time).

"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".

I agree that the rule is ambiguous because of this multiple use of forward and it could use some clarification. But what I don't agree with is that the clarification should be that, when the QBs arm is hit, it becomes a fumble when it lands behind the QB (relative to the yard line).
 
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.

Any ball that leaves the hand of an offensive player that goes backward without being touched by another player should be a fumble. Simple as that. No need to determine the intent or any of that nonsense.
 
Nothing about intent in there at all

Here's the actual rule again (posted, I think, for at least the fourth time)

"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".

We'll have to agree to disagree, or just agree that you are not correct about that one.
 
Last edited:
We'll have to agree to disagree, or just agree that you are not correct about that one.

Intent and intentional, while closely related, are two different words. The context in which they are used in this rule also help to distinguish the difference here.

Intentional is an adjective that is applied to an action to signify something that was done purposely. In this case, its context in the rule distinguishes the passer's purposeful forward motion of his arm as apposed to accidental forward motion of the arm, for example, when another player might bump the passer's arm forward.

Intent is a noun that represents the state of mind of an individual performing an act. The context is which intent has been used in this thread refers to whether or not the passer's objective was to throw a forward pass.

There's nothing in the rule about what's going on in the player's mind.
 
So if a running back is running with the ball, and is "intentionally" moving his arms backward and FORWARD while running, as all people do, can it not be argued that if the ball came out while his arms are "intentionally" going forward, that this should be ruled an incomplete pass and not a fumble?

Because apparently we aren't concerned about whether the intent was to throw a forward pass. We are only concerned with whether the player intentionally moved his arm forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvgUser
So if a running back is running with the ball, and is "intentionally" moving his arms backward and FORWARD while running, as all people do, can it not be argued that if the ball came out while his arms are "intentionally" going forward, that this should be ruled an incomplete pass and not a fumble?

Because apparently we aren't concerned about whether the intent was to throw a forward pass. We are only concerned with whether the player intentionally moved his arm forward.

How many times do I have to ask people to READ THE RULE and UNDERSTAND IT before you make stupid comments like this?

I'll post it again.

"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".

How exactly can you argue said running back is "holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone"?

RTFR
 
How many times do I have to ask people to READ THE RULE and UNDERSTAND IT before you make stupid comments like this?

I'll post it again.

"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".

How exactly can you argue said running back is "holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone"?

RTFR

So CLEARLY now you are talking about intent. "To pass it forward toward the neutral zone" is ALL about intent.

What I and some others are saying is that it's ridiculous to have a ref determining a player's intent on plays like this. Did it go forward or backward?... is far more clear cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob_Anderson
So CLEARLY now you are talking about intent. "To pass it forward toward the neutral zone" is ALL about intent.

What I and some others are saying is that it's ridiculous to have a ref determining a player's intent on plays like this. Did it go forward or backward?... is far more clear cut.
Absolutely. The word intent might not appear in the rule, but it is certainly implied.
 
So CLEARLY now you are talking about intent. "To pass it forward toward the neutral zone" is ALL about intent.

What I and some others are saying is that it's ridiculous to have a ref determining a player's intent on plays like this. Did it go forward or backward?... is far more clear cut.

I can see your point, but I would argue that it's based on how he's positioned not what's in his head.
 
What about on a swing pass to the RB, where the quarterback INTENDS to throw a forward pass, but due to where the RB is in his route, or due to general inaccuracy, the ball goes backward? The quarterback my INTEND for the ball to go forward, but sometimes throws these passes backward. And when he does, and the pass is incomplete, it is ruled (correctly) a fumble.

In a similar situation, if the quarterback is throwing into a stiff wind and throws a swing pass that hits the wind and ends up going backward, to my knowledge this is still treated as a fumble if it goes backward.
 
What about on a swing pass to the RB, where the quarterback INTENDS to throw a forward pass, but due to where the RB is in his route, or due to general inaccuracy, the ball goes backward? The quarterback my INTEND for the ball to go forward, but sometimes throws these passes backward. And when he does, and the pass is incomplete, it is ruled (correctly) a fumble.

In a similar situation, if the quarterback is throwing into a stiff wind and throws a swing pass that hits the wind and ends up going backward, to my knowledge this is still treated as a fumble if it goes backward.

On your second point, that would have to be rules an incomplete pass wouldn’t it? Assuming the quarterback was faced in a forward position and the arm was going forward, it doesn’t matter where the ball actually goes does it?
 
"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".

How exactly can you argue said running back is "holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone"?
A QB in the pocket evading the pass rush (i.e., moving about) is really no different than a running back heading toward the line of scrimmage with the ball. Hence if it is going forward and his arm is knocked, as kevina001, according to this rule it is and incomplete pass.

Perhaps you post and read the rule again yourself and understand just how ludicrous it is the way it is worded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC
NFL rule wording, which is similar to the NCAA's:


When a player is in control of the ball and attempting to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass.


(a) If the passer is attempting to throw a forward pass, but contact by an opponent materially affects him, causing the ball to go backward, it is a forward pass, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else.


I will admit that I thought Penn State got screwed by the call against Michigan State, but apparently the refs got it right.

However, this is a really, really bad rule. If the ball leaves a player's hands, and that ball ends up going backward without being touched by a defensive player, that should be a fumble 100% of the time.
 
Update from referee for what it is worth: it was a fumble.

QB's hand was not moving toward the LOS when first contact was made by #18. Interestingly, he said it would have absolutely been ruled a fumble initially then reviewed post play to determine whether it was an incomplete pass (I don't recall what the ruling was on the field but he was 100% sure it should have been deemed a fumble initially because instant replay was in effect).

He focused on something I had missed: it doesn't matter if his ARM is moving forward; the question is whether his HAND was moving toward the LOS before #18 touched him. Early in this thread, someone posted the rule but the language was, I believe, the old language that referred to "arm or hand". The new language is below:

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).

The underlined section is actually underlined in the NCAA rulebook because it is "further clarification" of what constitutes a forward pass. My guess is that they removed the language about "arm or hand" so that sole focus was on his hand. This guy is certain this was a fumble. Said it would likely be addressed during the Big 10 referee conference this week and identified as an error on the field (if it was initially ruled a forward pass) and, he believes, an error on the replay review since there is nothing to suggest his hand was moving toward LOS. Remember, the default is fumble because instant replay is effect.

Interesting. FWIW this was the same guy who told me two years ago that the Big 10 would find fault with the ejection of Brandon Smith from the Michigan game and likely apologize to PSU for the error. He was correct on that one for sure.
 
ADVERTISEMENT