The only problem is there are hundreds of examples of this not being the case, including plays that screwed us when on O and on D.
And THAT is the key issue. Ambiguity is the lubricant for the NFL control of the outcomes.
NFL again says 2 and 2 make 5.
- Thread starter majrleaged
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
The only problem is there are hundreds of examples of this not being the case, including plays that screwed us when on O and on D.
And THAT is the key issue. Ambiguity is the lubricant for the NFL control of the outcomes.
To be honest, over the last decade, I tend to be in the minority and often take the side of the NFL in these disputes. Quite often, the problem is a "bad rule"-- in other words, the refs correctly implement an obscure rule. People get mad at the refs when often the problem is that the rulebook needs to be changed.
But this call-- man, it's a doozy, and it;'s hard to defend it on any level. I'll do a little more searching, but it's hard for me to imagine that IF this is the actual rule, then why the hell has it not been called this way for years and years and years? Surely there are dozens of counter-examples from the last decade or so?
ANd for sure, this damn rule needs to be changed. This one falls under "football common sense." If everyone in the stadium thinks it should be a turnover, then yeah, make the rule such that this play is a damn turnover. Sheesh!
EDIT: below, the latest BS defense today from the NFL. The notion that "we've never seen this happen before anytime within the last decade or so" seems ludicrous. OF COURSE contact from defender occasionally causes a QB to inadvertently pass the ball backward, resulting in a turnover.
"If the defender contacts the passer prior to the passer starting his throwing motion, then it can be ruled as a backward pass. Because Goff already started his throwing motion and then the defender contacted him, it is therefore a forward pass," Butterworth said.
"The determining factor is does the passer begin his throwing motion prior to contact from the defender. The throwing motion starts as he begins to bring the ball up as a part of his windup and then the defender's contact made the pass go backwards," Butterworth said.
But this call-- man, it's a doozy, and it;'s hard to defend it on any level. I'll do a little more searching, but it's hard for me to imagine that IF this is the actual rule, then why the hell has it not been called this way for years and years and years? Surely there are dozens of counter-examples from the last decade or so?
ANd for sure, this damn rule needs to be changed. This one falls under "football common sense." If everyone in the stadium thinks it should be a turnover, then yeah, make the rule such that this play is a damn turnover. Sheesh!
EDIT: below, the latest BS defense today from the NFL. The notion that "we've never seen this happen before anytime within the last decade or so" seems ludicrous. OF COURSE contact from defender occasionally causes a QB to inadvertently pass the ball backward, resulting in a turnover.
"If the defender contacts the passer prior to the passer starting his throwing motion, then it can be ruled as a backward pass. Because Goff already started his throwing motion and then the defender contacted him, it is therefore a forward pass," Butterworth said.
"The determining factor is does the passer begin his throwing motion prior to contact from the defender. The throwing motion starts as he begins to bring the ball up as a part of his windup and then the defender's contact made the pass go backwards," Butterworth said.
Last edited:
I like Rams
Hall of Fame
Funny how they know all these little obscure "rules", but cant even get the basic ones right. Clown show.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
Definitely Bullshit. It is just another twisting of a rule to muddy the rules so they can manipulate outcomes when they deem it to be necessary. I picture some lawyers spending all offseason searching thru the rule book for rules meant to clarify a particular rule that they can use at some point for something not intended. You know like lawyers have been doing for years.
Strongly disagree with this. Both the NFL and the refs make mistakes all the damn time. This just happened to be a particularly obvious and dumb one.
For example, on the NYG-DAL game, there were at least two instances where the refs made a noticeable bad call-- and two times when the rules analyst in the booth pointed it out and acknowledged the mistake for the TV audience.
IMO, this "conspiracy" stuff about "manipulating outcomes" is pretty silly. If the NFL actually wanted to manipulate outcomes, they'd do it as sneakily as possible, not by making a blatantly obvious stupid call on a stupid rule-- for all the world to see and complain about.
So yeah, it's a stupid rule and a terrible call, but crying "manipulating the outcome" is taking it way too far IMO.
Thanks for trying to explain this, I missed your post earlier.
I still find this "item 1" mind boggling. The relevant rule is rule 3, section 21, article 3, item 1.
Below is "article 3" with 4 following "items".
I really find it hard to imagine that "item 1" is so freaking rare that we think it's "obscure". I NEVER recall this distinction about "the windup of the beginning of the throwing motion" being so damn important. The debates have always been about "is the arm moving forward" and "does the passer have control of the ball when it leaves his hand." We NEVER debate "did he start moving the ball up and backward to BEGIN his throwing motion. "
Article 3. Forward Pass
It is a forward pass if:- the ball initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent’s goal line) after leaving the passer’s hand(s);
- the ball first touches 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); or
- when a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his hand starts a forward pass.
When a passer is contacted by an opponent before beginning his throwing motion, the direction of the pass is the responsibility of the passer, and intentional grounding rules apply.
Item 2. Passer Tucks Ball. If the player loses possession of the ball during an attempt to bring it back toward his body, or if the player loses possession after he has tucked the ball into his body, it is a fumble.
Item 3. Passer Re-Cocks His Arm. If the player loses possession of the ball while attempting to re-DNA rifle his arm, it is a fumble.
Item 4. Fumbled or Muffed Ball Goes Forward. The fact that a fumbled or muffed ball goes forward is disregarded, unless the act is ruled intentional. If it is intentional, a fumbled ball that goes forward is a forward pass (8-1-1), and a muff is a bat (12-5-1).
I feel this is a very similar situation as the Tuck Rule controversy. Prior to Tom Brady and the famous Raiders playoff game, the exact same thing happened to Kurt Warner vs the Saints and when that play happened, it seemed unfair to me that the Rams benefitted from the call, but it was "Okay, I'll take it" moment, where what looked like an obvious fumble by Warner was determined to be an incomplete pass. When people thought there was a conspiracy against the Raiders and that the NFL had made up a fictitious rule to help the Patriots, one reason was because they hadn't watched or didn't remember this play from the Rams game and weren't aware of the prior instances where the rule had been applied.
We saw a similar thing with the Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant plays with the "what is a catch" controversy, where what intuitively seemed like an obvious catch was determined to be an incomplete pass. So, just as with that rule, maybe the NFL should look at either clarifying or changing the language of the rule.
In a way, we have been debating the rule, just not in the actual language of the rule. When people on TV talk about whether the QB has an "empty hand" when his arm begins to move forward, they are indirectly referring to this same rule. There is no such language as "empty hand" in the rule you quoted above, it is just a lay person, shorthand way of describing the application of the rule. Neither the Russell Wilson nor the Goff plays are empty hand plays, because the QB has a grip on the football as the pass leaves his hand.
It is 100% fair to debate whether Goff's hand was actually moving forward as he started his windup. IMO, this is similar to baseball where pitchers have different types of windups and there is a borderline balk call. Goff has a loop to his windup where the ball comes down slightly, then back as he begins his motion. When ARod was in college under Tedford, he was taught to bring the ball straight up to his earhole as soon as he got the snap. If a QB does that, has his arm "moved forward" immediately? Is it impossible for him to ever fumble in the pocket, because he could always argue that his throwing motion had already started?
Well, Rich Eisen, if we change the rule, what should it say? Because if we change it, the exact same controversy could happen, just in the opposite direction. For example, let's say the QB's hand indisputably is going forward, nobody argues otherwise. But, the DE standing in front of the QB, deflects the ball before the ball leaves the QB's hand (e.g. the ball goes off of the DE's helmet or the DE's extended hand) causing the ball to go backwards or sideways. Is that now a fumble? Our instincts say no, because that scenario isn't a fumble today. So, how are you going to write the rule to keep it that way?
It is easy to say "change the rule" when you don't actually propose any language to fix it.
pvtdragon39
Pro Bowler
Yes they did! It was intended for Charbonett, who was behind the line of scrimmage, so intended lateral pass.According to the Rule book its live until someone has clear possesion even if the whistle blows. Good 2pt conversion because Charbonett picked it up. Honestly if Verse didnt go for the ball, it would have failed. 3 of our defenders quit going after the ball too.
Goff on Sunday Vs Saints! Not a Fumble but a live ball. A Backwards pass to me as he didnt go forward motion and went backward, so live ball, Recoved by Saints = TD!
Goffs pass with us was an intend forward pass that hit the ground vs Steelers, so should be incomplete pass, Nothing more. NFL doesnt even know thier own rule book.
I believe there is a pecking order when it comes to the zebras being 'conflicted' or 'uncertain' about how to rule plays like these and the LA RAMS are way down the totem poll.
Frisco, on the other hand, or Pittsburgh, are 'viewed with much more favor'.
Thanks for debating this, I find it interesting.
I'd argue that the answer is to simply delete this particular rule. No need to "change" it. The particular rule-- rule 3, section 21, article 3 , item 1-- merely outlines a "loophole" which runs counter to the overall spirit of the rule. By simply deleting it, one allows for common sense to factor in.
They hypothetical scenario you just described is already covered well by the current rule.
As soon as the QB's hand is moving forward ('forward" defined as TOWARD the opponent's goal line), with the ball within the QB's control-- as long as the ball is moving one millimeter "forward', it is immediately considered a forward pass, and therefore when it makes contact with a defender it becomes an "incomplete pass", even if after that contact the ball bounces "backward."
In Goff's case, the ball was NEVER moving forward, and his hand was NEVER moving forward. The whole "windup" BS should be utterly ignored. The only thing that should matter is the last and final step of the throwing motion-- when the ball is within the QB's hand and moving forward. So in Goff's case, since the ball was never moving forward within Goff's control, it should be considered a live ball as soon as it separated from his hand.
The overall rules regarding "forward pass" are pretty damn consistent and make sense. Glad they deleted the Tuck Rule BS. This other particular loophole needs to be deleted as well, IMO.
When the NFL tried to fix the Tuck Rule situation, they didn't just delete language from the rule book, they changed the wording. The current rule governing fumbles while tucking the ball is in Rule 8, Article 1. It says that if you lose the ball "during an attempt to bring it back [to your body]" then it is a fumble.
The current "tuck rule" is arguably just as dangerous and controversial as the old rule that impacted the Tom Brady play. The reason they created the old rule was to try to make a "bright line" rule where you didn't have to try to interpret the QB's intentions. In other words, how are you supposed to know whether the QB is attempting to tuck the ball or not? QBs sometimes start to throw the ball but maybe see a DB jumping in front of the WR, then think twice about releasing it, then the ball slips out of the QB's hand. So, exactly at one point during the QB's arm movement does it switch from being a pass attempt to be an attempt to bring the ball back to the QB's body? Didn't this happen to Russell Wilson playing for the Broncos?
1. If QB throws it at the feet of the WR, this is an incomplete pass.
2. If QB throws it 10 yards short of the WR, maybe it is intentional grounding (assuming QB is under pressure). If QB isn't under pressure, is this also just an incomplete pass?
3. If QB drops the ball right at his own feet, presumably this is a fumble.
But, how do we differentiate between #2 and #3? Was QB trying to tuck the ball and lost control or is it just a very ugly dead duck pass, spooked by the CB? The old rule tried to eliminate this question to create consistent rulings, by saying that if QB's arm was moving forward, it always would be an incompletion. The danger of the current rule is now the ref has to try to read the QB's mind and interpret what the QB was trying to do. It introduces a subjective element that can be difficult to judge.
I think this has happened other times too, but my memory is a little fuzzy. I think it involved the Titans, but I don't remember if they were on offense or defense. Was it Ryan Tannehill?
Anyway, my point is at the end of the day, you still need a human being to judge whether the QB fumbled or whether it is a pass. So, IMO the NFL can't truly "fix" the tuck rule. All they did is shift the question, but they didn't eliminate the potential for controversy. The exact same thing could happen this year in the playoffs if a QB changes his mind "mid-swing" like a golfer and the ball slips out of his hand.
Watch the play in the following link. Is it a fumble or an incomplete pass? Let's analyze it both under the current "Goff version" of the rule and an alternative "just use our common sense judgment call" type rule. What do you think?
https://www.si.com/nfl/kenny-pickett-bizarre-pass-attempt-vs-cowboys-jokes
Usually I appreciate complexity, but regarding rules about the definition of a forward pass, it seems like it's possible for it to be relatively simple and straightforward. Maybe I'm not following your reasoning, but I don't see what seems to be so subjective and complicated.
Regarding the Kenny Pickett play you mentioned, after watching the video, it seems pretty clear that the ball traveled backward (from the point the ball left his hand until the point the ball made contact with the ground). So it's either a fumble or a backward pass-- either way, it's definitely a live ball. Seems cut and dried to me.
And regarding the "tuck" issue, I noticed the following from rule 3 , article 21, section 3, item 2:
Item 2. Passer Tucks Ball. If the player loses possession of the ball during an attempt to bring it back toward his body, or if the player loses possession after he has tucked the ball into his body, it is a fumble.
Again, this seems reasonably cut and dried to me.. Sounds like the rule is saying "no more tuck defense, if you lose the ball during or after a tuck, it's still a fumble."
I think I hear you when you say that the current passing rules (all of them in general) still might leave some subjective wiggle room in some extraordinary circumstances.
But to me: if the ball leaves the quarterback's hand and then travels BACKWARD, it's a live ball. 100% of the time. No loopholes. No questions of intent.
(The only possible wrinkle I could imagine is the "spiking the ball to kill the clock" play... maybe the rules could leave a little leeway so we don't have to get out the microscope to see where the ball traveled. But again, this seems like an area which could allow for common sense. The rule could be written to accommodate the "spiking the ball to kill the clock" pretty easily).
But bottom line: if the ball leaves the QB's hand and travels backward, it's a live ball. I still don't quite see how that basic concept should be so hard to enforce and to describe within the rules.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #39
it amazes me how we even needed a tuck rule or this rule about if the passer starts to bring the ball up. if the ball goes backwards and it wasn't deflected it is a backwards pass. simple. No caveats, nothing. it only becomes complicated when they start to nit pick every scenario. If a passer starts to throw the ball but changes his mind and pulls it back then fumbles it, it's a fumble. if a passer tries to stop his pass and it comes out of his hand its a fumble cause he didn't pass it, he fumbled it. If a passer starts to lift the ball to pass it forward and he is hit before he starts the forward motion and it causes him to throw it backward its a backwards pass or essentially a fumble. not complicated. Intent is not important.
I don't agree that it is so simple. Pickett's hand is clearly moving forward and the ball isn't so loose that this is an "empty hand situation", the ball is still in his hand. Yet, it is obvious that the contact from the LB at the point where the QB begins his windup causes Pickett to not have a firm grip on the ball.
So, why is this a fumble vs the situation where the QB's hand goes forward, but immediately hits say the DT's helmet, causing the ball to bounce backwards right as it leaves the QB's hand? In that situation, the ball never goes forward, it goes backwards from the QB's hand right off the bat. A bunch of QBs, Brees, Manning, Stafford, Purdy have all hurt their hands hitting it on a defenders helmet, so it is a fairly common situation where the QB's hand could get hit prior to him fully releasing the pass. If the ball never goes forward on such a play, is it always a fumble? IMO, that would be a very odd result that is inconsistent with common sense, because we've always said that if the arm is going forward, then it is a pass and not a fumble. Pickett's arm is clearly going in a forward direction. So, why is this a fumble?