NFL again says 2 and 2 make 5.

[Twopointtry]

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.

You just made up a new rule. There is nothing in the rule book creating an exception or carve-out regarding the ball being deflected as it is leaving the QB's hand. What is the reasoning behind calling it an incomplete pass if the defender who hits the QB's hand/arm is standing directly in front of the QB and the ball bounces off him, but it is a fumble if the defender is behind or to the side of the QB and the contact causes the ball to go sideways or backwards? It seems to me a very flimsy way to distinguish 2 different plays that should be treated the same. In both situations, the QB is trying to throw a forward pass, but the defender causes the ball to never travel in a forward direction once it leaves the QB's hand. Why does it matter whether the ball hits the defender or whether the defender just hits the QB's body or the QB's arm?

There was a play in a Rams game where Stafford is in the grasp and about to get sacked, his helmet looking down at the ground, but he tries to shovel pass the ball to the feet of Puka directly in front of him, standing behind the OL. It was correctly changed to an incomplete pass. Let's say the exact same play happens, but with 2 different variations:
1. When Stafford tries to shovel the ball forward, the ball hits the leg of the DL trying to sack him, causing the ball to deflect backwards. This is an incomplete pass, right?
2. When Stafford tries to shove it forward, his arm hits the arm of the DL. This causes the QB to drop the ball and the ball goes straight down to the ground, then a defender falls on it. Is this a fumble? I don't understand why it would be a fumble, because once Stafford begins his throwing motion, even underhanded for a shovel pass, under the current rule, this would be determined to be an incomplete pass regardless of the direction the ball travels once it leaves Stafford's hand.

 

[Twopointtry]

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.

In the Goff play in question, the refs determined that the QB had started his forward motion. Are you arguing with the rule itself or the ref's interpretation and application of the rule to this specific play? Because, under the current rule, if the QB loses the ball before he starts moving the ball forward to pass, it is a fumble and not a pass.

Instead of making the rule clearer, I think you made it more complicated, because now there is a distinction between "lifting the ball" and "starting the forward motion". When a QB's hands separate and the ball goes up to the earhole of the QB's helmet (a normal throwing motion), at what point does it flip from being the act of "lifting the ball" where it can result in a fumble and become the start of the forward motion, which would result in an incomplete pass?

 

[majrleaged]

You just made up a new rule. There is nothing in the rule book creating an exception or carve-out regarding the ball being deflected as it is leaving the QB's hand. What is the reasoning behind calling it an incomplete pass if the defender who hits the QB's hand/arm is standing directly in front of the QB and the ball bounces off him, but it is a fumble if the defender is behind or to the side of the QB and the contact causes the ball to go sideways or backwards? It seems to me a very flimsy way to distinguish 2 different plays that should be treated the same. In both situations, the QB is trying to throw a forward pass, but the defender causes the ball to never travel in a forward direction once it leaves the QB's hand. Why does it matter whether the ball hits the defender or whether the defender just hits the QB's body or the QB's arm?

There was a play in a Rams game where Stafford is in the grasp and about to get sacked, his helmet looking down at the ground, but he tries to shovel pass the ball to the feet of Puka directly in front of him, standing behind the OL. It was correctly changed to an incomplete pass. Let's say the exact same play happens, but with 2 different variations:
1. When Stafford tries to shovel the ball forward, the ball hits the leg of the DL trying to sack him, causing the ball to deflect backwards. This is an incomplete pass, right?
2. When Stafford tries to shove it forward, his arm hits the arm of the DL. This causes the QB to drop the ball and the ball goes straight down to the ground, then a defender falls on it. Is this a fumble? I don't understand why it would be a fumble, because once Stafford begins his throwing motion, even underhanded for a shovel pass, under the current rule, this would be determined to be an incomplete pass regardless of the direction the ball travels once it leaves Stafford's hand.

Your right, it is common sense that is not needed to be stated. I strike that. If the ball was thrown forward then deflects backwards doesn't need to be mentioned.

1. and 2. If the arm was moving forward in both cases they are not fumbles. In all cases the only factor is if the QBs arm is moving forward, not backward before anything changes for any reason. Goffs body got hit and his arm was moving backward when he released the ball. end of story.

 

[jrry32]

If his arm was moving forward when he got hit, it's the right call. It's essentially no different than a defender batting a forward pass back behind the QB. That's never a fumble. That should be true when the defender is three yards from a QB who released the ball or hitting the QB as he attempts to throw.

 

[Merlin]

What happened to the arm needing to move forward? Goff's arm was nowhere near moving forward

Precisely. I am so fucking tired of this revisionist shit, where they unnecessarily change what constitutes a fucking catch or pass or dig up some obscure reference in the rulebook to complicate its defnition. It is completely unnecessary.

For decades a pass has "started" when the arm is moving forward. If a pass is going backwards it is a live ball. Why in the everlovingfuck would they mess with that. Are they trying to drive older fans away from their game? I actually am starting to suspect that's their gameplan.

 

[majrleaged]

If his arm was moving forward when he got hit, it's the right call. It's essentially no different than a defender batting a forward pass back behind the QB. That's never a fumble. That should be true when the defender is three yards from a QB who released the ball or hitting the QB as he attempts to throw.

He had not started the motion when he got hit. He got hit when he was bringing the ball up. Then his arm started moving backward. He let go of the ball while he was in the backward motion then his arm started to go forward. You can see it clearly.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mu5P8F0h8U&t=67s

goff backwards pass

 

[dieterbrock]

If his arm was moving forward when he got hit, it's the right call. It's essentially no different than a defender batting a forward pass back behind the QB. That's never a fumble. That should be true when the defender is three yards from a QB who released the ball or hitting the QB as he attempts to throw.

His arm wasn’t moving forward. And they doubled down by saying it doesn’t have to. Which has been the rule as long as I can remember

 

[jrry32]

He had not started the motion when he got hit. He got hit when he was bringing the ball up. Then his arm started moving backward. He let go of the ball while he was in the backward motion then his arm started to go forward. You can see it clearly.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mu5P8F0h8U&t=67s

goff backwards pass

Yeah, the forward motion of his wind-up begins before the ball comes out. It's the hit that causes the ball to go backwards. That's not a fumble. The ball doesn't come out until after his arm starts moving forward.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Did Terry McAulay call that one in too? Still waiting on repercussions from that bullshit from the Seattle 2 pt debacle.

That makes me think:
Has anyone ever heard of a "scorecard" for these refs? We used them in business. Key metrics of the job. Like, how many times was a specific ref's call overturned? Review tapes and see how many missed calls. Things like that. A scoring system and bottom 10% get cut.

Like you said, I never heard about repercussions for blown or missed calls. It's like they are free from accountability. If I ran my business that way, I'd be out of business.

Maybe I'm all wet and there is such a system - I've just never heard of it. Edumacate me.

 

[majrleaged]

Yeah, the forward motion of his wind-up begins before the ball comes out. It's the hit that causes the ball to go backwards. That's not a fumble. The ball doesn't come out until after his arm starts moving forward.

So when does the forward motion start? Cause he is hit before that starts. If the ball came out when he is hit it would have been called a fumble.

 

[Ram65]

For decades a pass has "started" when the arm is moving forward. If a pass is going backwards it is a live ball. Why in the everlovingfuck would they mess with that. Are they trying to drive older fans away from their game? I actually am starting to suspect that's their gameplan

His arm wasn’t moving forward. And they doubled down by saying it doesn’t have to. Which has been the rule as long as I can remember

That's what I always thought they looked for. Goff's pass looked like a fumble to me.

 

[Ground Chuck]

They need to half the size of the NFL rule book, go back to 15 min OT and back to regular kick offs.

And get rid of the male cheerleaders too.

 

[jrry32]

So when does the forward motion start? Cause he is hit before that starts. If the ball came out when he is hit it would have been called a fumble.

From the video you posted, this is the point where his forward motion starts, and he still has control of the ball. The question on fumble vs. forward pass is whether the QB has control of the ball when his arm starts moving forward. If his arm is moving forward, even if the defender knocks it out of his hand before he completes his motion and the ball goes backwards, it's still a forward pass. If the defender jars it loose before the throwing motion starts moving forward, it's a fumble, even if the ball is propelled forward by the QB's throwing motion.

Now, if a QB intentionally throws the ball backwards, that's a different issue. But we're talking about a QB being hit by a defender as he's in the midst of his throwing motion. The rule has always been (as long as I remember) that it's a forward pass regardless of where the ball ends up if his arm is starting to move forward (even ever so slightly) with control of the ball. It's a fumble, regardless of where the ball ends up, if he loses control of the ball before the arm starts its forward movement.

 

[rdlkgliders]

 

[XXXIVwin]

To me, the unnecessary confusion rests with the definition of the word "forward."

Some might argue that shortly before impact, Goff's hand was starting to move "forward" in that his hand was moving "in front of his torso."

But that's the wrong definition of "forward" to use here. The word "forward" should only be used to mean "the passer's hand is moving forward and TOWARD THE OPPONENT'S GOALLINE. "

It's pretty fricking obvious that Goff"s hand was NOT moving forward and toward the NO goalline- - as evidenced by the ball obviously going BACKWARD and toward Detroit's goal line!

Again, it needn't be so damn complicated!

That ball from Goff was obviously heading backward, from the moment of release to the moment it hit the ground. NFL could and should fix this rule pretty easily.

 

[Karate61]

It's a fumble, regardless of where the ball ends up, if he loses control of the ball before the arm starts its forward movement.

So, according to Mike Pereira's explanation this weekend, that is not exactly correct:

1. The Definition of "Throwing Motion"
Many fans and commentators believe a forward pass only begins when the quarterback's hand physically starts driving forward. Pereira clarified that the NFL interprets the "throwing motion" as beginning the moment the quarterback starts bringing the ball up to prepare for the throw. If the quarterback is hit after this upward motion starts, the passing sequence has officially begun. [1, 2, 3]

2. The Element of Intent
Because Goff's clear objective and physical motion were geared toward executing a downfield throw, his intent to pass forward governs the play. According to Pereira, because the motion to throw forward had already commenced, the action cannot be ruled a fumble. [1, 2]

3. Trajectory Doesn't Matter After Contact
Pereira's explanation relies on NFL Rule 8, Section 1, Article 1, Item 1 (Contact by an Opponent). The rule states that if defensive contact materially affects a passer after they begin their throwing motion, it is ruled a forward pass regardless of where the ball strikes the ground or travels. Even though the hit forced the ball to fly backward, the rule treats the resulting play as an incomplete forward pass. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

[XXXIVwin]

So, according to Mike Pereira's explanation this weekend, that is not exactly correct:

1. The Definition of "Throwing Motion"
Many fans and commentators believe a forward pass only begins when the quarterback's hand physically starts driving forward. Pereira clarified that the NFL interprets the "throwing motion" as beginning the moment the quarterback starts bringing the ball up to prepare for the throw. If the quarterback is hit after this upward motion starts, the passing sequence has officially begun. [1, 2, 3]

Unfortunately I think this summary is accurate. And it makes me want to puke.

If you re-watch Pereira's explanation, he clearly states that "Goff's throwing motion starts as soon as he brings the ball UP."

I'm sorry but that is freaking ridiculous. That flies in the face of what we fans have seen with our own eyes for decades. How many bazillions of times have we seen QB's get hit when they are bringing the ball "up" prior to the throw, then getting hit and the ball is dislodged, and the ruling on the field is a fumble?

I've defended the NFL on numerous occasions, sometimes even defending their own tortured logic. But this Goff call in the Saints game is a freaking travesty.

 

[Steve808]

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.

That play was BS. Once the whistle blows the play should be over. So if Charbonet was picking up the ball and someone dove at his knees and gave him an ACL, it would be legal because he was trying to get the ball even if the whistle blew?

 

[pvtdragon39]

That play was BS. Once the whistle blows the play should be over. So if Charbonet was picking up the ball and someone dove at his knees and gave him an ACL, it would be legal because he was trying to get the ball even if the whistle blew?

According to the Rules, Yes! Its a Live Ball and Active even when the Whistle Blows. We may get flagged for Unnecessary Roughness if its deemed malicious intent! It says they are allowed to review it, and Change it when someone gets a clear decisive Possesion. Which they did after the whistle.

However, The Whistle did blow before they picked it up.Which means dead, So conflicting Rules there.

So the new rule should say, Backwards pass is live, until it hits the Ground. it is Treated as Incomeplete pass If the Ball hits the Ground with no Clear Possession. If A Player Catches it off of Deflection, and makes a clear Catch, then its Awarded Possession. Forward Passes are incomeplete when they hit helmets all the time or intercepted. Once they hit the Ground, they are dead so should apply to backwards ones too. So Post is Correct 2+2=5 or in Our Case =8

 

[Merlin]

That ball from Goff was obviously heading backward, from the moment of release to the moment it hit the ground. NFL could and should fix this rule pretty easily.

The worst part of all this is if the NFL gets around to "fixing" it, they'll fuck it up worse. And we'll end up with a mini-era like we did when they couldn't figure out what a catch was.

What they probably need to do first is clear out their officials who have their heads up their asses. To include the idiots that no doubt lurk in the NFL machine that have to do with rules interpretation and pick their asses at their desks hatching plans to confuse everyone. Ok sort of kidding there but I'm sure they have those types working "diligently" in the background.