Hughes non-TD

[Boatdrinks]

3 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

It was the right call. That is why every team runs those plays. Takes the Fumble out of Play. And it was forward Baker was deeper than Hunt and ball went thru Hunts arms 

Yep. If it went thru Hunts arms and into Hughes hands it would have been an INT. It hit the ground, therefore it’s incomplete. Not sure why people can’t understand this. 

[Virgil]

I get that this situation is a one off, but if this play is going to keep happening in the league, I think it should be evaluated from an officiating standpoint.  By what he know to be a pass, that wasn't a pass.  I don't know if it's worth the time to change the rules for, again a one off, but what's the difference between a forward hand off and this play? 

 

It was underhand.  You could argue he more dropped that ball than pushed it.  If you'd never seen the play before, you could argue it was a bad hand off.  You can't officiate intent, but that wasn't meant to be a pass.

 

Either way, I fully understand based upon the rules why it was ruled an incomplete pass.  For the intent of the play, should have been a fumble.

[MAJBobby]

3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Yep. If it went thru Hunts arms and into Hughes hands it would have been an INT. It hit the ground, therefore it’s incomplete. Not sure why people can’t understand this. 

not sure either. Very easy play and was called correctly like it has been all season actually on this type play not sure I ever remember the Refs getting it wrong. 

[frostbitmic]

When I saw it at full speed I thought we just won the game. As soon as I saw the replay I knew it was coming back.

[Boatdrinks]

5 minutes ago, Virgil said:

I get that this situation is a one off, but if this play is going to keep happening in the league, I think it should be evaluated from an officiating standpoint.  By what he know to be a pass, that wasn't a pass.  I don't know if it's worth the time to change the rules for, again a one off, but what's the difference between a forward hand off and this play? 

 

It was underhand.  You could argue he more dropped that ball than pushed it.  If you'd never seen the play before, you could argue it was a bad hand off.  You can't officiate intent, but that wasn't meant to be a pass.

 

Either way, I fully understand based upon the rules why it was ruled an incomplete pass.  For the intent of the play, should have been a fumble.

Nah it’s been around for a long time, just a variation of a shovel pass. Takes the risk of a fumble out of the equation , but it can turn into an INT if batted around. 

[Scott7975]

Quote

Article 1  DefinitionIt 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  hand(s); 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 the point at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand(s). 

 

Did the ball move forward after leaving his hand?  If yes, it is a forward pass.

Did the ball first strike the ground or the player  closer to our goal line than when it left Mayfield's hand?  If yes, it is a forward pass.

 

If neither of those things are true, it is a fumble.

 

That is the way I read the rule.  The only time the motion of his hand comes into play is if he contacts a player or was trying to tuck and loses the ball before he tucks according to the rules you posted.  In this instance, Mayfield's hand motion has nothing to do with the play.  The only thing that matters is whether or not the ball moved forward when it left his hand.  To me it did not look like it was going forward.  However, it really is tough to tell and I don't really have a problem with the call.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Scott7975

[MAJBobby]

Just now, frostbitmic said:

When I saw it at full speed I thought we just won the game. As soon as I saw the replay I knew it was coming back.

Agree full speed looked like a Botched Handoff. On replay clearly saw the flip forward and knew it was coming back as well. 
 

either way the inexcusable part was that Defense just going invisible the rest of that drive 

[Livinginthepast]

7 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Nah it’s been around for a long time, just a variation of a shovel pass. Takes the risk of a fumble out of the equation , but it can turn into an INT if batted around. 

The shovel pass from Kelly to Thurman was one of my favorite Bills offensive plays in the K gun. I've always wondered why it was so effective back then but the high powered offenses of today don't tend to use it regularly (or at all).  Was Thurman that special a player to run that play with effectiveness?

Edited November 11, 2019 by Livinginthepast

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, Livinginthepast said:

The shovel pass from Kelly to Thurman was one of my favorite Bills offensive plays in the K gun. I've always wondered why it was so effective back then but the high powered offenses of today don't tend to use it regularly (or at all).  Was Thurman that special a player to run that play with effectiveness?

Lol these plays go in and out of fashion, but I know what you mean. Still, that play always made me nervous for some reason. 

[Orlando Tim]

I am surprised they did not call it dead immediately and when they did not call it dead I thought it was gonna count since if it went forward at all it was so small. Though that has been called an incomplete all year. Basically I am saying they have been consistent and should have killed it immediately.

[Maybe Someday]

19 minutes ago, Virgil said:

I get that this situation is a one off, but if this play is going to keep happening in the league, I think it should be evaluated from an officiating standpoint.  By what he know to be a pass, that wasn't a pass.  I don't know if it's worth the time to change the rules for, again a one off, but what's the difference between a forward hand off and this play? 

 

It was underhand.  You could argue he more dropped that ball than pushed it.  If you'd never seen the play before, you could argue it was a bad hand off.  You can't officiate intent, but that wasn't meant to be a pass.

 

Either way, I fully understand based upon the rules why it was ruled an incomplete pass.  For the intent of the play, should have been a fumble.

This wasn't a one off, it's quite common and has been around a few years. We've been running it all year. So have many other teams. 

 

It's already been evaluated from an officiating standpoint as well. Some call it a pop pass and does not have to go forward to be ruled incomplete.

 

When the play first came out the QB often turned and handed it off to the WR running behind them. When that was botched it was a fumble. Now the WR always runs in front of the QB and the QB & WR are never touching the ball at the same time. 

[Virgil]

2 minutes ago, Maybe Someday said:

This wasn't a one off, it's quite common and has been around a few years. We've been running it all year. So have many other teams. 

 

It's already been evaluated from an officiating standpoint as well. Some call it a pop pass and does not have to go forward to be ruled incomplete.

 

When the play first came out the QB often turned and handed it off to the WR running behind them. When that was botched it was a fumble. Now the WR always runs in front of the QB and the QB & WR are never touching the ball at the same time. 

 

 I was referring to the result of that particular play being a one off.  My point is overall going forward if the play is going to continue to gain steam.

[Maybe Someday]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I am surprised they did not call it dead immediately and when they did not call it dead I thought it was gonna count since if it went forward at all it was so small. Though that has been called an incomplete all year. Basically I am saying they have been consistent and should have killed it immediately.

Because all turnovers are reviewed the refs are letting things play out so they can ensure it gets reviewed and is correct without a coach having to challenge.

[Orlando Tim]

3 hours ago, Jobot said:

 

Such confidence but your justifications make no sense.  If someone were to provide an actual justification I would be thrilled.

Just because you are stating as if this is obvious- Homerun throwback went from a player at the 29 to a player at 31. The question is did ball go forward from time of release - I think it did but if it did not go forward this call is wrong

3 minutes ago, Maybe Someday said:

Because all turnovers are reviewed the refs are letting things play out so they can ensure it gets reviewed and is correct without a coach having to challenge.

If it is a incomplete pass why not just kill it? That play is consistently called incomplete- it was not overturned by replay since you can not show it went forward but by NY official fixing their mistake of not calling dead immediately.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Browns ran that play twice.  It's about execution, something that frequently eludes the Bills.

[Maybe Someday]

19 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Just because you are stating as if this is obvious- Homerun throwback went from a player at the 29 to a player at 31. The question is did ball go forward from time of release - I think it did but if it did not go forward this call is wrong

If it is a incomplete pass why not just kill it? That play is consistently called incomplete- it was not overturned by replay since you can not show it went forward but by NY official fixing their mistake of not calling dead immediately.

 

I've just noticed that after the Saints got screwed earlier this year when refs blew a play dead as an incomplete pass (not a play like this) rather than letting the 80+ yard fumble return for a TD, the refs have been letting things play out more often...especially late in close games.  Basically a CYA type thing.

 

Also it doesn't matter on this play if the ball goes forward, as long as it doesn't clearly go backwards. It can go straight up and would still be considered incomplete if the WR drops it.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Maybe Someday

[pennstate10]

2 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

I'm not sure why this play has justified 4 pages of commentary.

It really wasn't a very unusual or controversial play.

 

 

 

Ive got to say it stunning how many people don't understand this play. 

 

Did the ball clearly go forward?

 

yes or no?

 

from the replays I saw,there was no evidence that the ballwent forward. 

 

If if it didn't clearly go forward,then it's a backward pass and a TD for buffalo. 

 

The replay officials reversed the call.  

 

Where  is the clear irrefutable evidence that the ballwent forward?

 

A pretty simple question; I've not seen the answer in these 4 pages. 

 

Please realize that the answer has to be a picture or video or statement from an expert who has reviewed same. 

 

All the rest,especially comments from the Pats fan,is simply a waste of electrons. 

[Freddie's Dead]

It's only a fumble when we run the play, like last year.  

[Buffalo716]

3 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

When I saw it at full speed I thought we just won the game. As soon as I saw the replay I knew it was coming back.

Same

[row_33]

4 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

I'm not sure why this play has justified 4 pages of commentary.

It really wasn't a very unusual or controversial play.

 

 

because it seemed for three minutes to have been the dagger in a win

 

sorry you missed it as it happened 

[reddogblitz]

9 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

I don't know shooter. 

In the clip you linked, you can't see the ball the instant it leaves his hand. But it looks like the release point is just over the yard line, and the ball hits the ground just at the yard line. If it's a millimeter behind, then it's a backward pass, by definition. 

How could the officials a be so certain that the ball went forward. Certainly not based on that clip. 

 

on this video of looks like the football never hit the ground in which case, it's a pick.

[Orlando Tim]

5 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

It's only a fumble when we run the play, like last year.  

I do seem to remember this but can not recall any specifics, can you?

[MAJBobby]

7 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

 

Ive got to say it stunning how many people don't understand this play. 

 

Did the ball clearly go forward?

 

yes or no?

 

from the replays I saw,there was no evidence that the ballwent forward. 

 

If if it didn't clearly go forward,then it's a backward pass and a TD for buffalo. 

 

The replay officials reversed the call.  

 

Where  is the clear irrefutable evidence that the ballwent forward?

 

A pretty simple question; I've not seen the answer in these 4 pages. 

 

Please realize that the answer has to be a picture or video or statement from an expert who has reviewed same. 

 

All the rest,especially comments from the Pats fan,is simply a waste of electrons. 

so who is the Pats Fan. It was clearly a incomplete pass. Game said. Salvatore said. Only ones that are not agreeing are the ones that want to put this on the refs 

[Troll Toll]

3 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

so who is the Pats Fan. It was clearly a incomplete pass. Game said. Salvatore said. Only ones that are not agreeing are the ones that want to put this on the refs 

In this thread I’ve argued it appears to be a lateral and I stand by that. However, I’m not blaming the refs for this loss. I’m most disappointed and frustrated that this team looked like a gritty playoff squad (tough for 60 minutes) through Week 4 and since the Bye they look like they have been mailing it in effort-wise. Poor effort tackling, missed blocks   on offense, and receivers that nonchalantly drop pass after pass. I’m not seeing players hold themselves accountable.

[CLTbills]

14 hours ago, JK Fan said:

Yes, it was a forward pass.  The Bills run the same play every week with McKenzie.  The idea is to drop and let the player catch it.  

This is exactly it though. He dropped it. the ball didn't move forward. It went literally straight down from the time it left his hands. It is no different than a runner dropping the ball straight down. When Josh does it, the ball moves forward, hence it is then a forward pass.

 

And you know they didn't even look at it, as the referee announced that "the Quarterback's arm was moving forward when he lost control of the ball" which CLEARLY wasn't even the issue at hand. They didn't even look at it, they just gave it to the Browns.

13 hours ago, Richmond_Bills said:

Oh my god people.  The ball went forward.  It went through Hunts arms who was IN FRONT of Mayfield.  

This means nothing. If i hold my arms out in front of me and drop the ball, it doesn't matter if the runner is in front of me. I still dropped the ball straight down. So every time a runner is behind the LOS, he should just hold the ball in front of him because then if he drops it, it's a forward pass?

Edited November 11, 2019 by CLTbills

[BananaB]

Ball still has t to move forward for it to be an incomplete pass. His hands going forward do not matter if the ball doesn’t go forward.  In my opinion there is no clear evidence the ball went forward. None

[BillsFan692]

Last year they took one away from allen called it a fumble.

 

NFL should change this rule. 

[BananaB]

2 minutes ago, BillsFan692 said:

Last year they took one away from allen called it a fumble.

 

NFL should change this rule. 

My brother said there was a similar play in a Pats game a couple weeks ago and it was called fumble

[Alphadawg7]

Tell me people aren’t really trying to pretend the refs got the call wrong.  
 

Lmao, it’s literally 100% indisputable, it was an incomplete pass.  Ball was IN FRONT of the QB...case closed.  
 

5 pages about a play that has 0 room for argument?  
 

We lost because our kicker missed 2 FGs.  We lost because our offense didn’t do enough that made 2 missed FGs the deciding factor.  We lost because Daboll sucks.  We lost because our D only played tough at goal Lina but let too many drives get there.  We lost for a lot of reasons.  
 

But we did NOT lose because of this Hughes play, it was 100% without question an incomplete pass.  

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, BananaB said:

My brother said there was a similar play in a Pats game a couple weeks ago and it was called fumble

 

that settles it then

 

[Jobot]

2 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

so who is the Pats Fan. It was clearly a incomplete pass. Game said. Salvatore said. Only ones that are not agreeing are the ones that want to put this on the refs 

 

Troll...

19 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Tell me people aren’t really trying to pretend the refs got the call wrong.  
 

Lmao, it’s literally 100% indisputable, it was an incomplete pass.  Ball was IN FRONT of the QB...case closed.  
 

5 pages about a play that has 0 room for argument?  
 

We lost because our kicker missed 2 FGs.  We lost because our offense didn’t do enough that made 2 missed FGs the deciding factor.  We lost because Daboll sucks.  We lost because our D only played tough at goal Lina but let too many drives get there.  We lost for a lot of reasons.  
 

But we did NOT lose because of this Hughes play, it was 100% without question an incomplete pass.  

 

Not disputing that the Bills had plenty of chances... but the reason there's so much discussion is some people are applying the 'lateral justification' point of the ball from release to point of the ball when it hits the ground.  That rule calls this a fumble if you don't think the ball moved forward.  Bakers arm goes up towards the sky, not from behind his head forward.

[Alphadawg7]

15 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

Troll...

 

Not disputing that the Bills had plenty of chances... but the reason there's so much discussion is some people are applying the 'lateral justification' point of the ball from release to point of the ball when it hits the ground.  That rule calls this a fumble if you don't think the ball moved forward.  Bakers arm goes up towards the sky, not from behind his head forward.

Its only a fumble of the QB tosses the ball backwards.  Everything else is incomplete pass.  
 

The QB had the ball in front of him, the ball was released there.  The ball was not tossed backward in any capacity.  All that equals incomplete pass.

 

There isn’t a ref in the world that rule that play anything other than an incomplete pass.  
 

My point is, there are a lot of reasons why we lost...lots to discuss on those.  This was not in anyway shape or form a reason why we lost and nothing really to debate.  

[row_33]

the play on review was obviously a forward pass, kind of weasely but still a forward pass

 

why is anyone still arguing about this?

 

[fergie's ire]

16 hours ago, Livinginthepast said:

They tried to explain that his arm was moving forward underhand to justify it as a forward pass. Like a softball pitch that slipped out of your hand.

Yes, not sure if it was covered by anyone because I haven't had the chance to go through the whole thread, but Lofton actually explained the rule well earlier in the game when Josh Allen had one called an incomplete pass.  Once the arm is going forward, even if something happens like the defender twists the quarterback or it comes out of the hand in such a way so that the ball goes backward, it is an incomplete pass.  It doesn't matter where the ball ends up once the quarterback's arm is moving forward.....a bit like the tuck rule.

[MAJBobby]

37 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

Troll...

 

Not disputing that the Bills had plenty of chances... but the reason there's so much discussion is some people are applying the 'lateral justification' point of the ball from release to point of the ball when it hits the ground.  That rule calls this a fumble if you don't think the ball moved forward.  Bakers arm goes up towards the sky, not from behind his head forward.

so I am a troll because I don’t agree with your view seen thru Bills Glasses?

[Jobot]

22 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

so I am a troll because I don’t agree with your view seen thru Bills Glasses?

 

Troll because you stubbornly hold to your views regardless of logic after proven incorrect

44 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Its only a fumble of the QB tosses the ball backwards.  Everything else is incomplete pass.  
 

The QB had the ball in front of him, the ball was released there.  The ball was not tossed backward in any capacity.  All that equals incomplete pass.

 

There isn’t a ref in the world that rule that play anything other than an incomplete pass.  
 

My point is, there are a lot of reasons why we lost...lots to discuss on those.  This was not in anyway shape or form a reason why we lost and nothing really to debate.  

 

"Not-forward" aka "lateral" is also a fumble.  It doesn't have to go backwards to be a fumble, it just has to go forward to not be a fumble.

[Jobot]

Rule 8 Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble Section 1 Forward Pass

DEFINITION 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 hand(s); 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 the point at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand(s).

 

IN CONCLUSION.....The point at which the ball hit the ground was not closer to the opponent's goal line than were Bakers hands!

[Beach]

i just watched the replay over and over.  its not the best angle but it looks like the ball initially moves forward after leaving his hand.  so only a or b from the rule definition needs to occur. part a occured.  the call was correct.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Beach

[IgotBILLStopay]

18 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

I get it wasn't a fumble. 

Was it a forward pass?

from the views shown, it looked like the ball went straight down, not forward, from the instant it left his hand.

in which case it was a backward pass, recoverable by the defense. 

I too would like a better explanation. 

 

1. Some facts first:

 

a. Yes the QB's arm was moving forward before he released the ball

b. Not sure if the ball is moving forward (so it is different from the Josh Allen sweeps).

c. you need irrefutable proof to overturn the call on the field

 

I understand it is not a fumble if a QB's hand is moving forward as he is being hit. But Mayfield was not being hit here. So the fumble criterion should not be arm moving forward (which is what the ref said), but whether it was a lateral pass. A lateral pass occurs when the ball carrier throws the football to a teammate in a direction parallel to or away from the opponents' goal line. Do we have irrefutable evidence this was a forward pass? Dammit - in the Music City Miracle, they said we cant conclusively determine if it was a forward pass or lateral - so ruling on the field stands. Now since they overruled the call, NFL should tell us the refs could conclusively determine that it was not a lateral - and the explanation should have nothing to do with whether Mayfield's arm was moving forward or not. It is very much possible to throw a backward pass with the arm moving forward - just slow / stop the forward motion and use your wrists. 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by IgotBILLStopay

[IgotBILLStopay]

17 hours ago, Richmond_Bills said:

Oh my god people.  The ball went forward.  It went through Hunts arms who was IN FRONT of Mayfield.  

yes hunt was ahead of Mayfield. But watch where Mayfield's arm is when he releases the ball and where it lands (behind Hunt) - I dont know if angle is wrong - but the more I look at it - it seems the ball is definitely not going forward ..