slipkid Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 If it leaves his hand before he starts the forward motion but it is still on his fingertips as he throws forward it would. I actually think that was the right call. Correct, perhaps. But unless the rule says "the palm" must be in contact, it was a bad call. I'm fairly certain "the hand" was responsible for the ball going forward almost twenty feet.
Chandemonium Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 If it leaves his hand before he starts the forward motion but it is still on his fingertips as he throws forward it would. I actually think that was the right call. If it's still on his fingertips, then it hasn't left his hand yet.
NoSaint Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 If it's still on his fingertips, then it hasn't left his hand yet. If he isn't controlling it, it has.
Chandemonium Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 If he isn't controlling it, it has. and if he's propelling it forward, he's controlling it.
NoSaint Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 and if he's propelling it forward, he's controlling it. If its loose and his hand is incidentally contacting it, no. I'd want to see it again before arguing that happened, but if its not held in his hand when moving forward, then it's a fumble.
Best Player Available Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 If its loose and his hand is incidentally contacting it, no. I'd want to see it again before arguing that happened, but if its not held in his hand when moving forward, then it's a fumble. I remember it being out of his hand moving forward.
Chandemonium Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 If its loose and his hand is incidentally contacting it, no. 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.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 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. To me that doesn't enter the equation. If he loses the ball, and control of the ball, before he starts his forward throwing motion it is a fumble. The definition of a fumble, and that is what it looked like to me on the replay.
NoSaint Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) 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. Like I said, its hard for me to argue specifics to this play without re-watching it, but if its not being controlled, ie it is bobbled while going back, it amounts essentially to it just being slapped forward, that's not a pass. It's a fumble that was knocked forward - intent inconsequential Edited September 24, 2012 by NoSaint
Max997 Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 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? If you don't get how that can happen me explaining it won't help This wasn't even close IMO
jumbalaya Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 I had the same thought. I cannot understand how those plays are different. Either way, that was not a fumble, period. How could the ball move forward if no one touched him and the ball slipped out of his hand if it wasn't in his hand when he started moving his arm forward? That putrid pass was a fumble IMO. His hand went back and came forward without the ball. That the ball went in any direction did not matter it was a putrid play and a fumble was a correct call.
slipkid Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 That putrid pass was a fumble IMO. Yep. An incomplete pass. Definitely putrid but not a fumble.
slipkid Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 If you don't get how that can happen me explaining it won't help This wasn't even close IMO 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.
JESSEFEFFER Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 I believe when a QB fumbles behind the line and its recovered by defense it's considered a sack That was clearly a fumble. His arm was moving forward but the ball was already out I think the difference in the two plays was one being blown dead and the other being considered an incomplete pass Then what force was applied to the ball to propel it FORWARD if it wasn't the throwing motion?
Dorkington Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 I have no problem with that being called a fumble... one of those that can be called either way, sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't. But I am confused as to why it's considered a sack. O.o
NoSaint Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) Then what force was applied to the ball to propel it FORWARD if it wasn't the throwing motion? 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? Edited September 24, 2012 by NoSaint
mountainwampus Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 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?!
voodoo poonani Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 Fitz needs to make it up to the O-line for ruining their perfect record. Drinks on the QB
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 You guys are funny. The only reason the oline is good is because Fitz gets rid of the ball quickly. Wasn't that what a lot of fans said last year? Watching the Pats-Ravens game and hte pressure Brady gets, it was like watching the Bills of the last 11 or so years. So refreshing.
CSBill Posted September 24, 2012 Author Posted September 24, 2012 So, is the rule if he fumbled the ball (which, regardless of our opinions, is the call that was made by the replay official) is it counted as a sack, even though he wasn't touched or forced into the aledged "fumble"?
Recommended Posts