Forward pass ruling

[GaryPinC]

It is indeed moot...but since I'm pedantic enough to care, yes, that's a truncated version. Here's the full one:

 

http://static.nfl.co...Pass_Fumble.pdf

 

Relevant text is under Section 2 (Intentional Grounding), Article 1, Item 2, "Physical Contact".

 

Basically, if the QB initiates a throwing motion toward an eligible receiver, and the throw is altered by contact with another player, it's NOT IG.

 

Actually, that's the rule from 2013 which still incorporates the tuck rule. Here's the 2014 version which conveniently has the rule change in red:

 

http://static.nfl.co...Pass_Fumble.pdf

 

To summarize, there has to be clear evidence that Johnny was pulling the ball back towards his body and the replay official felt he wasn't so he overturned the call. There is no intentional grounding because when it struck off Kyle Williams' helmet it became a batted ball which negates a grounding call.

 

The thing why the officials are wrong is because Johnny started the pass and quickly dropped his arm angle right after he started to bring his arm forward. I understand the refs looked at the play and saw the ball swinging out towards Kyle and decided it was not coming back towards the QB but by dropping his elbow just after he started his throw that downward angle to shorten his swing was bringing the ball back towards his body. It's there on replay.

 

The other annoying thing is that I swear I saw the play from a camera in the back of the endzone and it was much more obvious from that angle. Anybody else see this or have access to that shot or am I remembering wrong?

 

Two things that should come out of this: If the QB changes the angle of his arm swing that should constitute a fumble if it gets knocked loose and any QB looking to avoid intentional grounding inside the box should bounce a pass off the defender to negate the possibility of a flag.

 

Some version of the rule will always remain as it is there to protect the QB's arm while in a throwing motion.

Edited December 3, 2014 by GaryPinC

[thebandit27]

 

 

Actually, that's the rule from 2013 which still incorporates the tuck rule. Here's the 2014 version which conveniently has the rule change in red:

 

http://static.nfl.co...Pass_Fumble.pdf

 

To summarize, there has to be clear evidence that Johnny was pulling the ball back towards his body and the replay official felt he wasn't so he overturned the call. There is no intentional grounding because when it struck off Kyle Williams' helmet it became a batted ball which negates a grounding call.

 

The thing why the officials are wrong is because Johnny started the pass and quickly dropped his arm angle right after he started to bring his arm forward. I understand the refs looked at the play and saw the ball swinging out towards Kyle and decided it was not coming back towards the QB but by dropping his elbow just after he started his throw that downward angle to shorten his swing was bringing the ball back towards his body. It's there on replay.

 

The other annoying thing is that I swear I saw the play from a camera in the back of the endzone and it was much more obvious from that angle. Anybody else see this or have access to that shot or am I remembering wrong?

 

Two things that should come out of this: If the QB changes the angle of his arm swing that should constitute a fumble if it gets knocked loose and any QB looking to avoid intentional grounding inside the box should bounce a pass off the defender to negate the possibility of a flag.

 

Some version of the rule will always remain as it is there to protect the QB's arm while in a throwing motion.

 

Not sure if you meant for this to be the case, but that's the exact same document. My comment was only in regard to why it wasn't intentional grounding.

[GaryPinC]

Not sure if you meant for this to be the case, but that's the exact same document. My comment was only in regard to why it wasn't intentional grounding.

 

It's actually not. Look at my link with the red writing in Section 1 article 1 (b) in the first paragraph compared to your document. That's where they pulled out the tuck rule.

[thebandit27]

 

 

It's actually not. Look at my link with the red writing in Section 1 article 1 (b) in the first paragraph compared to your document. That's where they pulled out the tuck rule.

 

My bad....meant to say that Section 2 is the exact same in the document (as in, the verbiage of the IG rule relating to contact with a defensive player is the same).

 

Sorry for any confusion.

[mead107]

Still say it was a fumble

[GaryPinC]

My bad....meant to say that Section 2 is the exact same in the document (as in, the verbiage of the IG rule relating to contact with a defensive player is the same).

 

Sorry for any confusion.

 

Yea, sorry. It wasn't in reference to your grounding point (thanks for that, by the way!) but when I looked at your link and saw the tuck rule up there I did a double take and wanted to set that part straight since it's relevant to the thread.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

Just fix the damn rule if ball is knocked out of QB hands while holding it, pumping it or releasing it is a fumble plain and simple. They made up this rule to help Brady and we continue to see it called. It is not a pass u til the ball is completely released from the QB hands plain and simple.

[TC in St. Louis]

Here's why they reversed it:

The marketing of Johnny Football would not allow such a play to be part of his first game. All the highlites are of his completed passes and the brilliant touchdown run. The sack, forced fumble and ensuing touchdown are not real. They did not exist because it was just another incomplete pass.

The league was about to change the time of the Browns game this Sunday to 3 p.m. if Johnny Football was named starting QB.

 

They changed that to an incomplete so as not to tarnish the Legend of Johnny Football. Cha-ching.

[Cynical]

Actually, that's the rule from 2013 which still incorporates the tuck rule. Here's the 2014 version which conveniently has the rule change in red:

 

http://static.nfl.co...Pass_Fumble.pdf

 

To summarize, there has to be clear evidence that Johnny was pulling the ball back towards his body and the replay official felt he wasn't so he overturned the call. There is no intentional grounding because when it struck off Kyle Williams' helmet it became a batted ball which negates a grounding call.

 

This is what I have been trying to say, before others started bringing up what JM said after the game and how JM reacted after the play was over.

All of that is irrelevant in regards to how the play is called and reviewed.

 

The thing why the officials are wrong is because Johnny started the pass and quickly dropped his arm angle right after he started to bring his arm forward. I understand the refs looked at the play and saw the ball swinging out towards Kyle and decided it was not coming back towards the QB but by dropping his elbow just after he started his throw that downward angle to shorten his swing was bringing the ball back towards his body. It's there on replay.

 

Based on the videos, and leaving out what JM said after the game, if you are the official looking at and reviewing that play, and you see the arm angle change and the elbow drop, is the QB trying to bring the ball back to his body, or is he trying to throw the ball into the ground to avoid the sack, or something else?

 

Based on the video evidence only, I think the official can say JM was trying to do something, but what?

 

The other annoying thing is that I swear I saw the play from a camera in the back of the endzone and it was much more obvious from that angle. Anybody else see this or have access to that shot or am I remembering wrong?

 

I believe in the Blandino video there is a shot from the back. Also, IIRC, in the Johnny Football/Meetball thread there's a GIF.

 

Just fix the damn rule if ball is knocked out of QB hands while holding it, pumping it or releasing it is a fumble plain and simple. They made up this rule to help Brady and we continue to see it called. It is not a pass u til the ball is completely released from the QB hands plain and simple.

 

Yeah that's it. The NFL officials made up a rule on the spot, and the NFL modified the rule book to protect a certain QB.

That completely ignores the fact the rule was cited and enforced in a game a year prior.

[JESSEFEFFER]

Watch the nose of the football rotate toward the sideline. No actual pass is ever released in such a manner. It's a maneuver intended to help maintain the grip. This is all occurring below shoulder height. No actual, pass is ever released from there unless it began as a sidearm or underhanded throw. So, JM did two things inconsistent with an actual pass but consistent with an attempt retain it. There's a whole range of motions that occur between the last, possible release point and having the ball safely returned, i.e. tucked.

 

The rule doesn't address any of them. One could easily argue that once the nose of the ball is rotated away, it is no longer going forward as it is no longer oriented in a forward direction.

 

That's two observable facts from the video I've seen to support the call on the field.

[Cynical]

Watch the nose of the football rotate toward the sideline. No actual pass is ever released in such a manner. It's a maneuver intended to help maintain the grip. This is all occurring below shoulder height. No actual, pass is ever released from there unless it began as a sidearm or underhanded throw. So, JM did two things inconsistent with an actual pass but consistent with an attempt retain it. There's a whole range of motions that occur between the last, possible release point and having the ball safely returned, i.e. tucked.

 

The rule doesn't address any of them.

 

And I don't think it ever will. To many variables to take into account, and that could possibly end up with a rule book looking like a version of War & Peace.

Not to mention the amount of time needed to review a play as the officials would have to run through all the different possibilities.

[Rob's House]

 

 

And I don't think it ever will. To many variables to take into account, and that could possibly end up with a rule book looking like a version of War & Peace.

Not to mention the amount of time needed to review a play as the officials would have to run through all the different possibilities.

 

I think it's important to you to defend the NFL's legitimacy and that you will defend the officiating regardless of its nature.

[Cynical]

I think it's important to you to defend the NFL's legitimacy and that you will defend the officiating regardless of its nature.

 

Nah, not really. I've read rules and seen the play. I think the call was correct.

 

But the topic does seem it's very important to those that feel the need to validate the "We was robbed", the "NFL officials suck", and the

"NFL is fixed" mentality that has permeated the board this year.

[Rob's House]

 

 

Nah, not really. I've read rules and seen the play. I think the call was correct.

 

But the topic does seem it's very important to those that feel the need to validate the "We was robbed", the "NFL officials suck", and the

"NFL is fixed" mentality that has permeated the board this year.

 

You also defended the Brady tuck rule call. You'll always defend the refs no matter how badly they botch it.

 

Being a referee apologist is no different from being the guy who always claims it's fixed. You're just on the opposite end of the spectrum. But still far enough out on the edge to predictably defend one particular side invariably.

[Cynical]

You also defended the Brady tuck rule call. You'll always defend the refs no matter how badly they botch it.

 

No, I do not always defend the ref's.

But if you want to make that assumption based on two calls we disagree on, that's more of a reflection of you and your perceptions.

I do not feel compelled to come on here and B word about every call or non-call I disagree with.

Especially when the Bills win.

 

Speaking of the Brady call, here's what I said, in case you have forgotten:

 

"At the time, I hated it.

However, since then, I have come to realize, it was the correct call.

I can hate the result of it, but the call was correct."

 

I still hate the result. But is that result of the officiating or of the rule itself?

 

For me, it's the way the rule was written. How anybody could determine that bringing a ball back to the body is still considered a part of the forward pass makes no sense.

So, yes. It was a correct call of a badly written rule.

 

Being a referee apologist ...

 

Whatever. If being an apologist means I do not want the officials to look at a players reaction after a play as determination of what happened, or spend 10 minutes reviewing a play

because they are trying to interpret the orientation of the ball and what that means, or analyzing the probabilities of a dropped elbow, then, yes, I am an apologist.

 

It's a game, not quantum physics.

[SouthernMan]

If the was no irrefutable evidence as the poster states (as many here are claiming), then the official could have just as easily stated the play stands as called.

Ok, simple question.

 

What made the official change the call?

 

2 plays are the most notable of Manziel's time on the field Sunday. The non fumble and the touchdown run.

 

On the touchdown run, an official was looking right at Hughes being tackled in the backfield on that play. No call. Hughes looked to be in position to stop or slow Manziel. Then there's the non-fumble. If it's so irrefutable, why did Mike Carey, every NFL commentator, and 95% of the people posting here questioning it? Because it's NOT irrefutable!!!

 

What made the official change the call? The NFL needs a new marquee player to promote endlessly on the NFL Network. Tebow is history. Brady and Manning are old news. Now it's the new kid on the block. The obnoxious JOHNNY FOOTBALL!!!

 

I'm being facetious and I don't actually believe in these diabolical motives, but I am starting to wonder. The NFL is a money machine. Maybe there is a little "wink-wink" going on between the NFL and the officials (hired by the NFL) to look the other way when it involves star players. It seems Brady and the Pats have gotten huge breaks for a long time. Maybe now it's Cleveland and Johnny Football's turn.

[SouthernMan]

Nah, not really. I've read rules and seen the play. I think the call was correct.

 

But the topic does seem it's very important to those that feel the need to validate the "We was robbed", the "NFL officials suck", and the

"NFL is fixed" mentality that has permeated the board this year.

 

You must be a defense attorney.

 

Here's the problem: they NFL is defining a pass as the player moving their arm in a forward motion while holding the ball. Manziel was going to pass.(maybe)

He didn't actually throw a pass by any rational person's understanding of the words "a pass" - only by the NFL's convoluted definition.

 

IMO - If the player is tackled while still in possession of the ball, that should be credited to the defenders who blew past the O-line and caused the disruption. They did their job. The guy holding the ball didn't. Who can argue with that?

 

So, with the idiocy of this rule, interpretation, or whatever - shouldn't the NFL at least be consistent? When a RB has possession of the ball and he's being gang tackled and one of the defenders wrenches the ball from his hands, shouldn't that be a non-fumble as well?. Clearly, he intended to keep running.

[Billsfan369]

You must be a defense attorney.

 

Here's the problem: they NFL is defining a pass as the player moving their arm in a forward motion while holding the ball. Manziel was going to pass.(maybe)

He didn't actually throw a pass by any rational person's understanding of the words "a pass" - only by the NFL's convoluted definition.

 

IMO - If the player is tackled while still in possession of the ball, that should be credited to the defenders who blew past the O-line and caused the disruption. They did their job. The guy holding the ball didn't. Who can argue with that?

 

So, with the idiocy of this rule, interpretation, or whatever - shouldn't the NFL at least be consistent? When a RB has possession of the ball and he's being gang tackled and one of the defenders wrenches the ball from his hands, shouldn't that be a non-fumble as well?. Clearly, he intended to keep running.

 

Bad call it was a fumble clearly!!!! but how about this : If it was in fact what they say is an attempted incomplete pass the ball landed way behind the line of play which therefore becomes a backwards latteral and a live ball touchdown anyway......... How about that???

[Cynical]

Bad call it was a fumble clearly!!!! but how about this : If it was in fact what they say is an attempted incomplete pass the ball landed way behind the line of play which therefore becomes a backwards latteral and a live ball touchdown anyway......... How about that???

 

Read the rule.

It was clearly a forward pass attempt.

The rule does account for a forward pass landing behind the player.

It's still an incomplete pass.

[mead107]

Hand was not going forward when he lost the ball. He was trying to bring it back to his body.

 

Looked the same every time they showed it on the jumbo screen