Forward pass ruling

[SouthernMan]

You should have. At least you would have some understanding of what the hell you talking about before you started this thread.

 

Rule 8, Section 1, Page 39

 

"When a player is in control of the ball and is 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."

 

That right there pretty much sums it up. It's the same thing Dean Blandino said in his explanation of the call.

 

Thanks for doing the research. By that absurd definition of a pass, the call may be correct if followed to the letter. I still maintain that the NFL can avoid this sort of controversy very simply - don't considered it a pass until the ball has completely left the passer's hand - that would negate any interpretation of intent. I'd take it a step further and say that the ball must go forward beyond the passer's body and the intended receiver should be obvious.

 

In this case, the ball was in Manziel's hand, perpendicular to the side of William's helmet when it was knocked free. Who was the intended receiver?

The ball NEVER went forward from Manziel's hand or body. That's considered a pass by NFL rule?

 

As I and another poster stated earlier, following the rule to the letter should make it nearly impossible to be sacked. All a passer has to do is make a forward arm motion and hammer the ball into a defender's helmet. By rule, it should be an incomplete pass and no sack or lost yardage.

 

And yet, Orton gets penalized multiple times for 'intentional grounding' when he actually threw a ball a good distance in the direction of a receiver. Go figure.

[Utah John]

It's interesting to see the different replays. The CBS replay showed the full action, where Manziel was clearly bringing the ball back into his body when Williams hit him. The ball was NOT moving forward, it was moving toward his body. The continuous motion replay shows why Carey and the broadcasters and so many NFL players said it was a fumble. The stop action highlights linked to the Blandino whitewash were clearly selected to give the impression Manziel had the ball moving forward in a passing motion. That forward motion supports the NFL's position, but the forward motion is what did NOT happen.

 

So the Bills won by a lot and everyone's happy, but Kyle Williams loses credit for a sack and a forced fumble, another Bill loses credit for a recovered fumble for a TD, and Schwartz loses credit for his defense making that play. Those stats have a lot to do with getting selected for the all-star game, the Bills still have an outside shot at the all-time sack record, and Schwartz looks a little less glamorous interviewing for HC jobs next year (OK that last is a good thing). Williams and the Bills might really be disgusted at this at the end of the year.

[Cynical]

Thanks for doing the research. By that absurd definition of a pass, the call may be correct if followed to the letter.

 

That absurd definition of a forward pass has been that way for years. How many football games have you watched where a QB gets a ball stripped,

and the announcers focus on whether or not the arm was moving forward.

 

I still maintain that the NFL can avoid this sort of controversy very simply - don't considered it a pass until the ball has completely left the passer's hand - that would negate any interpretation of intent. I'd take it a step further and say that the ball must go forward beyond the passer's body and the intended receiver should be obvious.

 

What controversy? The one where you want it to be a fumble?

Let's assume it is a controversy. It's a small one.

Like I said before, this rule has been in place for years. You want to change it because of one little perceived hiccup?

 

Let's look at your rule change:

"the ball must go forward beyond the passer's body and the intended receiver should be obvious."

You say you want to "negate any interpretation of intent", but then propose a change that does just that!

 

In this case, the ball was in Manziel's hand, perpendicular to the side of William's helmet when it was knocked free. Who was the intended receiver?

The ball NEVER went forward from Manziel's hand or body. That's considered a pass by NFL rule?

 

Re-watch the replays. That arm/ball is moving forward before Kyle hits him. When Kyle hits Manziel, and throws Johnny completely off balance,

that's when JM's arm/hands turns in, and smacks KW in the helmet with the ball.

 

As I and another poster stated earlier, following the rule to the letter should make it nearly impossible to be sacked. All a passer has to do is make a forward arm motion and hammer the ball into a defender's helmet. By rule, it should be an incomplete pass and no sack or lost yardage.

 

 

Like all sacks take place with the defender in the face of the QB.

Not to mention, given the speed and time it takes for a play to happen, if a QB's instinct is to hammer the ball into a defender's helmet to avoid a sack,

that QB will not be playing in the NFL for very long.

 

And yet, Orton gets penalized multiple times for 'intentional grounding' when he actually threw a ball a good distance in the direction of a receiver. Go figure.

 

Yet, your rule change would make some of those fumbles. That would never cause a problem, now would it?

[st pete gogolak]

So, Cynical, let me put the question to you this way. The "official" NFL position (tuck has to be completed 100%) is clearly wrong according to the rules - only has to be "attempt". Ruling on the field was fumble and touchdown. Are you saying that there was unrefutable evidence in the replay that he was not attempting to tuck the ball when he was hit??? Under the rules there is absolutely no way the call should have been reversed. Conversely, if the ruling on the field was incomplete forward pass, I can buy it not being reversed on review.

[plenzmd1]

Actually, this is a plausible defense.

 

I have got to say that while I disagreed with this call, I thought Jerome Bolger overall called a heck of a game. Maybe the best game of the year for us.

 

As much as I always complain about the officials, I have to give him props. The numerous holding penalties on our d-linemen were finally called. The illegal contact and PI calls were called correctly and evenly. I even liked the back-to-back taunting calls early on, which set the tone that they weren't going to let the players pull those stunts.

 

 

I have a question on this, and i can not find the answer in the rule book.

 

On Gordons penalty, they said it was after the play was over and was a dead ball foul.

 

They moved the sticks 15 yards back from THAT spot , and made it first and 10.

 

What if he that was a 2nd down play, and he came up 1 yard short of the first down...i assume would be 3rd and 16, not 2nd and 16.

 

 

 

Why would the sticks not stay were that play ended, and it nowe be first and 25???

 

I know there must be something specific to the unsportsman like...just as how after a score it is enforced on the kickoff, but i was curious about this and cannot find the answer.

Edited December 2, 2014 by plenzmd1

[Cynical]

So, Cynical, let me put the question to you this way. The "official" NFL position (tuck has to be completed 100%) is clearly wrong according to the rules - only has to be "attempt".

 

I have no idea where you got the NFL "official" position states the tuck has to be completed 100% in order to be a fumble. That was the old tuck rule.

The new rule states, and as stated by Blandino in that clip, if the player attempts to pull it back, then it becomes a fumble.

 

Ruling on the field was fumble and touchdown. Are you saying that there was unrefutable evidence in the replay that he was not attempting to tuck the ball when he was hit??? Under the rules there is absolutely no way the call should have been reversed. Conversely, if the ruling on the field was incomplete forward pass, I can buy it not being reversed on review.

 

Yes.

There is no doubt JM was attempting to pass the ball. He cocked his arm, and that arm and ball was moving forward before he got hit.

The disagreement seems to be around whether or not JM was pulling the ball back towards him, or did KW's hit cause the motion that makes it appear JM was pulling the ball back.

 

To me, it's clear. KW's hit caused it.

That hit threw Johnny backwards and off balance, which in turn caused his arm to curl in like he was trying to pull the ball back in.

[26CornerBlitz]

I have no idea where you got the NFL "official" position states the tuck has to be completed 100% in order to be a fumble. That was the old tuck rule.

The new rule states, and as stated by Blandino in that clip, if the player attempts to pull it back, then it becomes a fumble.

 

 

 

Yes.

There is no doubt JM was attempting to pass the ball. He cocked his arm, and that arm and ball was moving forward before he got hit.

The disagreement seems to be around whether or not JM was pulling the ball back towards him, or did KW's hit cause the motion that makes it appear JM was pulling the ball back.

 

To me, it's clear. KW's hit caused it.

That hit threw Johnny backwards and off balance, which in turn caused his arm to curl in like he was trying to pull the ball back in.

 

 

If your assertion is true, then why didn't JM jump up and protest the fumble/TD ruling on the field?

[K-9]

If your assertion is true, then why didn't JM jump up and protest the fumble/TD ruling on the field?

 

Also, if the assertion is true, it would have been intentional grounding and it would have been loss of down as well. It's too bad that aspect of the play isn't reviewable because it should be. If the call on the field can be overturned and be ruled a pass, then the intentional grounding of that pass should also be attached to that ruling.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[26CornerBlitz]

Also, if the assertion is true, it would have been intentional grounding and it would have been loss of down as well. It's too bad that aspect of the play isn't reviewable because it should be. If the call on the field can be overturned and be ruled a pass, then the intentional grounding of that pass should also be attached to that ruling.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Wouldn't the force of KW's hit would make it difficult to throw a flag for intentional grounding?

[Cynical]

Also, if the assertion is true, it would have been intentional grounding and it would have been loss of down as well.

 

Wow. That's one hell of a reach.

[st pete gogolak]

How can you possibly say it is unrefutable that he is throwing the football when he is hit? It certainly appears that he's actually bringing the ball back into his body before he is hit. Again, that's beside the point, The call on the field was a fumble. There is no unrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field. Case closed.

[Cynical]

If your assertion is true, then why didn't JM jump up and protest the fumble/TD ruling on the field?

 

 

And that has what (if anything) to do with how the play was called and reviewed?

[26CornerBlitz]

 

And that has what (if anything) to do with how the play was called and reviewed?

 

That's not the point, he meekly walked off of the field in acceptance of the call because he knew it was a fumble.

[Rob's House]

 

 

Wow. That's one hell of a reach.

 

What's your opinion of the tuck rule call that enabled Brady to reach his first SB?

[K-9]

Wouldn't the force of KW's hit would make it difficult to throw a flag for intentional grounding?

 

It was ruled an incomplete forward pass. There was no receiver in the vicinity and it never got close to the line of scrimmage. JFF was trying to avoid an imminent loss of yardage and that is intentional grounding and the force of KW's hit has nothing to do with it.

 

Wow. That's one hell of a reach.

 

How is that a reach? According to the rules of intentional grounding, when the QB is outside of the pocket the ball has to land at or beyond the line of scrimmage. Needless to say, the "pass attempt" didn't come close.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited December 2, 2014 by K-9

[Cynical]

How can you possibly say it is unrefutable that he is throwing the football when he is hit?

 

Um, because he was. That's what it looks like in the replay.

 

It certainly appears that he's actually bringing the ball back into his body before he is hit. Again, that's beside the point,

 

We will agree to disagree on the first part.

But to say it's beside the point is flat out wrong. It is THE point.

It's what determines if the ball was fumbled or an incomplete pass.

It is the basis of why the call was reversed.

 

The call on the field was a fumble. There is no unrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field.

 

The NFL officials disagree with you.

[thebandit27]

It was ruled an incomplete forward pass. There was no receiver in the vicinity and it never got close to the line of scrimmage. JFF was trying to avoid an imminent loss of yardage and that is intentional grounding and the force of KW's hit has nothing to do with it.

 

The rule regarding Intentional Grounding indicates that once a forward motion has begun in the direction of an eligible receiver, any contact with a player that affects the direction of the pass negates an intentional grounding penalty.

 

That said, he was trying to tuck the ball, and it should've remained a fumble. I believe Manziel said he believed it was a fumble in his post-game PC.

[Rob's House]

 

The NFL officials disagree with you.

 

That's kind of the point.

[billykaykay]

Actually, this is a plausible defense.

 

I have got to say that while I disagreed with this call, I thought Jerome Bolger overall called a heck of a game. Maybe the best game of the year for us.

 

As much as I always complain about the officials, I have to give him props. The numerous holding penalties on our d-linemen were finally called. The illegal contact and PI calls were called correctly and evenly. I even liked the back-to-back taunting calls early on, which set the tone that they weren't going to let the players pull those stunts.

Hughes was tackled on JF's TD run.

[K-9]

The rule regarding Intentional Grounding indicates that once a forward motion has begun in the direction of an eligible receiver, any contact with a player that affects the direction of the pass negates an intentional grounding penalty.

 

That said, he was trying to tuck the ball, and it should've remained a fumble. I believe Manziel said he believed it was a fumble in his post-game PC.

 

Perhaps I'm reading a truncated explanation of the rule on the nfl.com sight, but I didn't see that in the definition. Here's the quote:

 

 

 

Digest of Rules Main

 

Intentional Grounding of Forward Pass

 

• Intentional grounding of a forward pass is a foul: loss of down and 10 yards from previous spot if passer is in the field of play or loss of down at the spot of the foul if it occurs more than 10 yards behind the line or safety if passer is in his own end zone when ball is released.
  
• Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.
  
• Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).
  

 

 

Anyway, it's about as moot a point as can be made.

 

GO BILLS!!!