NFL again says 2 and 2 make 5.

[XXXIVwin]

Remember the "is it a catch" era? We're probably gonna see the same BS with QB fumbles and arm movement now, where they go all freeze frame to see if the arm is moving at all and will result in even more offensive favoritism.

Agreed that the "is it a catch" era was a colossal clusterfuck that dragged on for years. And the ENTIRETY of the "catch" rules were messed up and impacted several plays in every single damn game. (Thankfully they totally fixed the catch rules).

IMO though, the good news is that the weird Goff-Saints play is an extremely rare circumstance that's unlikely to be repeated any time soon. Overall I think the forward pass rules are pretty consistent and align with common sense. Here's hoping the NFL doesn't make a habit of finding weird loopholes.

 

[Twopointtry]

Hypothetical Two, very similar to the one you described: QB's arm is moving forward with possession of the ball, defender swats at QB's forearm but defender does NOT make contact with ball, ball flutters in the air and then lands on the ground. In my opinion, this should be simply based on physics....
In all of the scenarios I can think of, the question of "intent" can and should be irrelevant. The primary keys are "is the thrower's arm moving toward the opens goal line" and "is the ball moving toward the opponents goal line." Once these two factors become primary, the question of intent no longer needs to matter at all.

All we have to do is slightly change the Russell Wilson play to show how this could lead to the same type of controversy that arises from the Goff play.

1. Let's say that there is a RB/WR close and directly in front of Wilson;
2. Assume further that there is clear intent by Wilson to throw the ball to that receiver. The QB is looking directly at the receiver, begins his throwing motion towards the target. There is clear "forward" motion of the QB's hand towards the opponent's GL.
3. During QB's throwing motion, however, Aaron Donald grabs Wilson and violently spins him around, causing the pass to travel sideways or backwards when it leaves QB's hand. AD never makes contact with the ball, he is only grabbing QB around the waist.

Under your rule, intent is irrelevant. We're supposed to ignore Wilson's clear and undisputed intent to throw the ball forward to the RB/WR. Since the key factor is the direction the ball travels, this play would become a fumble. But, why is it "fair" to the offense for this to be a fumble?

The way the current rule works, it is identical to the analysis for intentional grounding. Would it be "fair" to the offense to call this play an incomplete pass, but penalize the QB for intentional grounding? IMO this would be contrary to the purpose of the rule, because it is clear that Donald's contact is what caused the ball to go in a different direction; the ball wasn't grounded "intentionally" by the QB.

 

[Twopointtry]

Like that 10-year stretch when we never knew what was and wasn't a catch. Disgraceful overthinking stupid League.

The "old" catch rule helped the GSOT Rams beat the Bucs on their way to the Super Bowl vs the Titans. Just saying.

 

[Twopointtry]

Yep. The same rule book that gave us the bullshit Tom Brady Tuck Play, which was forced to be repealed eventually.

The irony is that the reason the NFL made the "old" tuck rule that helped the Patriots (and helped the Rams in a similar play where Kurt Warner "fumbled") was to avoid having to consider the QB's intent. It was supposed to be a "bright line" rule that would lead to uniform results by only looking at the motion of the QB's arm.

When people try to simplify rules, sometimes it can unintentionally have the opposite effect and open the door for results not intended when the rule was written. The forward pass itself was at one time considered to be "cheating" and wasn't legal in football. Our entire trip down this rabbit hole began with a decision made long ago that made football more complicated.

 

[Coliseum Ram]

The "old" catch rule helped the GSOT Rams beat the Bucs on their way to the Super Bowl vs the Titans. Just saying.

Not talking about the Bert Emmanuel catch rule. Talking about the Dez Bryant one.

 

[Twopointtry]

Every reasonable football fan watched that Goff play and thought, "oh, that's a live ball."

I don't think it is so clear, even under a "lay person" common sense understanding, because the way TV analysts have always described the standard is whether the QB has an "empty hand" trying to throw the pass. In other words, when the QB's hand begins to come forward, is the ball still in his hand and under control, or was the ball knocked out prior to the QB's hand coming forward. In the Goff play, the ball is still in his hand, but due to the way Goff is holding the ball, the nose of the ball is pointed backwards away from the LOS. So, if Goff's hand isn't "empty", why is it a fumble? Didn't we just change the "rule" TV people have used for decades?