quote:
I've granted you this to an extent. Which is why I said I would rule it a fumble. But I don't know why you're quoting the rulebook as the explanation is definitely not in what you're quoting.

You quoted two definitions from the rulebook but then essentially said that it comes down to a non-written understandings.

Again, fair enough. I've always been fine with the call as a fumble. My point is the people saying Jon is an idiot or saying "read the rules" don't really know what's going on. Most of the arguments made are just wrong or irrelevant.

You are the one poster that has made a sensible argument. And it basically comes down to "that's just the way it's understood an accepted to be." I do think it should be a little more solidified in the rulebook though.

I believe my point is that the rule book still needs to be interpreted, and since "throwing" is not clearly defined, it is up to interpretation by the refs and judges to make that call, and the historical interpretation has been that there has to be some distinguishing feature (intentionality and posture?) between what most people understand is a "pass" and what most people understand is a "fumble" by a ball carrier.

I would agree that clarification is needed to resolve the controversy, but I honestly don't think it is a valid controversy, at least not yet. Most rational people don't have this sort of discussion because it's so stupidly obvious (my opinion) that the play in question was a fumble and not an illegal forward pass, and that this discussion is nothing more than internet bickering.