Fitz Sack = ? And O-line Pride

[Orton's Arm]

This is where I disagree. If the intent is to throw a forward pass and the ball moves forward without him being hit or otherwise interfered with in his throwing motion, then he is controlling the ball to some extent. In this situation it was extremely poor control, but still enough where it should have been ruled an incomplete pass IMO.

Let's say you have a running back who's carrying a slippery ball. No one touches the RB. Nevertheless, the ball starts to slip out of his hands. As the ball comes out, he uses his fingers and hands to shove it forward a few yards. Something like that is a fumble, not a forward pass. The reason this is the case is to prevent players from disguising their fumbles as forward passes. That rule also applies to QBs.

[HeHateMe]

^^Wut

[poo]

Check out the rankings for the Bills' O-Line at FootballOutsiders.com:

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

 

First in pass defense as of last week. Also, the Bills are far and away the best blocking team at the second level according to their analysis.

[The Big Cat]

Let me get this straight, if a QB loses grip on the ball while tucking the ball, getting sacked, it's an incomplete pass. If a QB loses grip while throwing it's a fumble and a sack?!

 

This is the issue.

The way the rules are written, it was a fumble, clear as day.

But that doesn't mean the rules make any bit of sense--they don't, for exactly the reason you posted here. I would love for someone to do a mash up of the "tuck" followed immediately by yesterday's "fumble." Because it's simply ludicrous.

 

I think we can all agree though that the fact that the ball slipped out had EVERYTHING to do with the rain, and virtually nothing to do with the suckitude for which some Bills fans are tirelessly seeking evidence.

[Jauronimo]

If the ball was totally loose and was slapped forward like a volleyball serve would you call it a "throw" just because his arm moved the ball forward?

No, I wouldn't. But that's not what happened on the field, so what good is the "volleyball" serve analogy?

[NoSaint]

 

No, I wouldn't. But that's not what happened on the field, so what good is the "volleyball" serve analogy?

 

it was an exaggerated example of what the rule equates the ball to once bobbled. its either under his control, or not. once its moving and not held by him, his forward motion is no more a throw than is the serve. it was sloppy in comparison, but it was primarily to exhibit how a ball could go forward without it being a "throw" since so many are saying that it falling in front of him is irrefutable proof. empty hand hitting a loose ball will send it any which way, without it being a throw was the messy point - got away from the actual play and into the nonsense of a claim like that by making an extreme and obvious example.

Edited September 24, 2012 by NoSaint

[vincec]

I guess you know the rule better than I do. Does it say that somehow the ball can go forward without being in his hand?

 

If it's about "control," which part of the hand must be in "control"? The part that made the ball go forward?

 

I thought the rule was if the hand has the ball and is moving forward, it is an incomplete pass.

You can lose control of the ball and still be in contact with it. Happens all the time to running backs and receivers when they fumble. Until the arm starts moving forward with control of the ball, it's not a forward pass. So Fitz lost control of the ball on the windup and then propelled it forward as he tried to throw after he had already lost control. So it wasn't a pass. It was a fumble.

 

Basically, if you lose control of the ball on your windup it is a fumble. If you lose control after you start your forward throwing motion then it's a forward pass.

 

Let me get this straight, if a QB loses grip on the ball while tucking the ball, getting sacked, it's an incomplete pass. If a QB loses grip while throwing it's a fumble and a sack?!

That is correct. See above. After you start your forward motion with control of the ball you are in the process of passing, so if you lose control of the ball either on your own or because someone hits you then it's an incomplete pass. The act of passing ends when the ball leaves your hand or when you "tuck" it back into your other hand. This is the "tuck" rule.

 

It's all pretty straight forward really. That was a fumble both technically and practically.

[slipkid]

You can lose control of the ball and still be in contact with it. Happens all the time to running backs and receivers when they fumble. Until the arm starts moving forward with control of the ball, it's not a forward pass. So Fitz lost control of the ball on the windup and then propelled it forward as he tried to throw after he had already lost control. So it wasn't a pass. It was a fumble.

 

Basically, if you lose control of the ball on your windup it is a fumble. If you lose control after you start your forward throwing motion then it's a forward pass.

 

 

That is correct. See above. After you start your forward motion with control of the ball you are in the process of passing, so if you lose control of the ball either on your own or because someone hits you then it's an incomplete pass. The act of passing ends when the ball leaves your hand or when you "tuck" it back into your other hand. This is the "tuck" rule.

 

It's all pretty straight forward really. That was a fumble both technically and practically.

 

Thanks for the lesson, I guess, but it really isn't all that "straightforward."

 

I took a look.

 

Rule 8: Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble

Article 1 Definition. It is a forward pass if:

a.) the ball initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent's goal line) after leaving the passer's hands; or

b.) the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else at a point that is nearer the opponent's goal line than at the point at which it leaves the passer's hand(s).

 

To be fair, after a note, what follows is a reference to what you seem, to be implying about the passer being "in control."

 

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

 

There is an (a), (b), and © after that. a.) deals with "contact by an opponent", b.) is the tuck rule, and c.) is about "recocking" the arm. None of which are applicable to this call

 

I guess you're giving more credit to the "control of the ball" than I am, and I may be giving more credit to the definition. I will note that "control of the ball" is located in a subordinate clause to the meat of that sentence--"any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass."

 

Edit: I forgot the link.

 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_2012_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

 

 

Edited September 25, 2012 by slipkid

[BuffaloBillsMagic1]

Explain to me how the ball ended up 6 yards in front of fitz if it wasn't propelled by his arm moving forward? What moved the ball forward?

The ghost of Trent edwards Past???

[Orton's Arm]

You can lose control of the ball and still be in contact with it. Happens all the time to running backs and receivers when they fumble. Until the arm starts moving forward with control of the ball, it's not a forward pass. So Fitz lost control of the ball on the windup and then propelled it forward as he tried to throw after he had already lost control. So it wasn't a pass. It was a fumble.

 

Basically, if you lose control of the ball on your windup it is a fumble. If you lose control after you start your forward throwing motion then it's a forward pass.

 

 

That is correct. See above. After you start your forward motion with control of the ball you are in the process of passing, so if you lose control of the ball either on your own or because someone hits you then it's an incomplete pass. The act of passing ends when the ball leaves your hand or when you "tuck" it back into your other hand. This is the "tuck" rule.

 

It's all pretty straight forward really. That was a fumble both technically and practically.

Very solid post!

[slipkid]

Very solid post!

Well, the post may be articulate and awfully confident, but it's incorrect. The argument relies entirely too much on some subjective notion of "control" that it assumes is the overriding factor in determing the differerence between a forward pass and a fumble.

 

The NFL rule book does not rely on "control" that much. In fact, the only reference to the passer being "in control" is in the context of a.) contact by an opposing player, b.) the tuck rule and c.) recocking the arm. None of those factors was present during the play in question.

 

Thus, that play should be determined by the definition of a forward pass--"the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else at a point that is nearer the opponent's goal line than at the point at which it leaves the passer's hand(s)." Even if one wants to rely on some vague notion of control, they must simultaneously acknowledge that "any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass."

 

So, I guess by discussion board standards it was a solid post in that it was cocky and a little snarky. In terms of accuracy and understanding the NFL rules, though, it wasn't so great.

Edited September 25, 2012 by slipkid

[Dorkington]

Check out the rankings for the Bills' O-Line at FootballOutsiders.com:

 

http://www.footballo...rs.com/stats/ol

 

First in pass defense as of last week. Also, the Bills are far and away the best blocking team at the second level according to their analysis.

 

This is pretty interesting. And lines up with how we run the ball pretty well.

[34-78-83]

so fine it's a fumble, but how is it a sack?

[vincec]

Well, the post may be articulate and awfully confident, but it's incorrect. The argument relies entirely too much on some subjective notion of "control" that it assumes is the overriding factor in determing the differerence between a forward pass and a fumble.

 

The NFL rule book does not rely on "control" that much. In fact, the only reference to the passer being "in control" is in the context of a.) contact by an opposing player, b.) the tuck rule and c.) recocking the arm. None of those factors was present during the play in question.

 

Thus, that play should be determined by the definition of a forward pass--"the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else at a point that is nearer the opponent's goal line than at the point at which it leaves the passer's hand(s)." Even if one wants to rely on some vague notion of control, they must simultaneously acknowledge that "any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass."

 

So, I guess by discussion board standards it was a solid post in that it was cocky and a little snarky. In terms of accuracy and understanding the NFL rules, though, it wasn't so great.

Whether or not you have control of the ball is the fundamental criteria in determining if you have fumbled. Once you lose control of the ball you have fumbled. Fitz lost control of the ball and fumbled. He wasn't in the act of passing when he fumbled. What happened to the ball after he fumbled (lost control of it) is just as irrelevant as what happens when a RB fumbles it. Forward, backwards, sideways. It doesn't matter. It's a fumble.

 

And since you're cherry picking the rulebook, you forgot this one: Rule 8, Section 1, Article 1: "When a player is in control of the ball and attempting to pass it forward, any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass."

 

Fitz was not in control when his arm starting moving forward, therefore it was not a pass.

Edited September 26, 2012 by vincec

[slipkid]

And since you're cherry picking the rulebook, you forgot this one: Rule 8, Section 1, Article 1: "When a player is in control of the ball and attempting to pass it forward, any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass."

 

 

Nope. No "cherry-picking" on my part. Check my previous post. This reference to "control" (the only reference to "control" in the section discussing the forward pass) is clearly in the context of a.) contact by an opposing player, b.) the tuck rule, or c.) recocking the arm. None of those conditions are applicable to the call at hand.

 

He wasn't in the act of passing when he fumbled.

 

Ultimately, I guess this is where you and I won't ever come to agree on this play. He sure looked like he was passing to me.

[vincec]

Nope. No "cherry-picking" on my part. Check my previous post. This reference to "control" (the only reference to "control" in the section discussing the forward pass) is clearly in the context of a.) contact by an opposing player, b.) the tuck rule, or c.) recocking the arm. None of those conditions are applicable to the call at hand.

 

 

 

Ultimately, I guess this is where you and I won't ever come to agree on this play. He sure looked like he was passing to me.

Come on. Here is the rule in it's entirety: Link

 

The items I mentioned are listed directly under the definition of forward pass, not under some special section. The section first explains when a pass is forward (as opposed to a lateral, and then explains when a quarterback is considered to have made a forward pass, which concerns us here).

 

How can you possible claim based on the definition above, which clearly states that the QB has to be in control of the ball when making a forward pass, that Fitz was making a forward pass? You're grasping at straws.

Edited September 26, 2012 by vincec

[3rdand12]

looked like passing to me. tough call though.

stupid rain.

[slipkid]

 

 

How can you possible claim based on the definition above, which clearly states that the QB has to be in control of the ball when making a forward pass, that Fitz was making a forward pass? You're grasping at straws.

 

The ball went forward. That, and the laws of physics.

 

In order to stop the backward motion of the ball as he drew his arm back, he must have had control of the ball until at least that point. Physics! You stated in an earlier post that "Until the arm starts moving forward with control of the ball, it's not a forward pass." According to the rule book, you are simply incorrect:

 

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

 

His hand does not have to be moving forward with the ball. Once he establishes control, as he did by stopping the backward movement of the ball, "any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass," which would include his fingertips. The "empty hand" rule only applies when there is contact with an opponent.

 

I guess you and the replay officials saw Fitz flailing his arms at the ball and accidentally knocking it forward. That's not what I saw.

 

Thanks for the link, by the way; the link I posted was getting old.

[Orton's Arm]

The ball went forward. That, and the laws of physics.

 

In order to stop the backward motion of the ball as he drew his arm back, he must have had control of the ball until at least that point. Physics! You stated in an earlier post that "Until the arm starts moving forward with control of the ball, it's not a forward pass." According to the rule book, you are simply incorrect:

 

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

 

His hand does not have to be moving forward with the ball. Once he establishes control, as he did by stopping the backward movement of the ball, "any intentional movement of his hand starts a forward pass," which would include his fingertips. The "empty hand" rule only applies when there is contact with an opponent.

 

I guess you and the replay officials saw Fitz flailing his arms at the ball and accidentally knocking it forward. That's not what I saw.

 

Thanks for the link, by the way; the link I posted was getting old.

The fact that he stopped the backward movement of the ball does not prove that he had "control." A ball starts coming out of a player's hands. (I.e., he loses control.) As it's slipping out, the player shoves the ball forward. A play like that is a fumble, not a forward pass!

[MDH]

The fact that he stopped the backward movement of the ball does not prove that he had "control." A ball starts coming out of a player's hands. (I.e., he loses control.) As it's slipping out, the player shoves the ball forward. A play like that is a fumble, not a forward pass!

 

How the hell can anybody care that much about this to argue about it all week?