Started By
Message
re: If a QB accidentally releases the ball on the forward motion of a pump fake
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:20 pm to IAmNERD
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:20 pm to IAmNERD
The rule you’re referring to:
The whole point of including “toward the neutral zone” is to define what “forward” means, not to insert a requirement that in order to attempt a forward pass you have to be behind the neutral zone. If that were a requirement, then there could be no illegal forward passes, it would just be fumbles.
Just because this rule specifically explains what a forward pass is in the context of a player throwing from behind the LOS, it doesn’t negate what a forward pass is when the player is beyond the LOS.
quote:
b. When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone, any intentional forward movement of the passer’s hand with the ball firmly in their control starts the forward pass unless the player clearly starts to bring the ball back with firm control to the passer’s body.
The whole point of including “toward the neutral zone” is to define what “forward” means, not to insert a requirement that in order to attempt a forward pass you have to be behind the neutral zone. If that were a requirement, then there could be no illegal forward passes, it would just be fumbles.
Just because this rule specifically explains what a forward pass is in the context of a player throwing from behind the LOS, it doesn’t negate what a forward pass is when the player is beyond the LOS.
2
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:23 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
Just because this rule specifically explains what a forward pass is in the context of a player throwing from behind the LOS
Yeah, then your issue is with the illegal forward lateral rule. Since a legal forward pass is clearly defined and has nothing to do with your dumbass argument you already did Saturday. I suggest you write the NCAA rules committee to get it cleared up instead of trolling a fricking message board.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:26 pm to IAmNERD
How does the illegal forward lateral rule apply to this play? Not saying it doesn’t, just curious what you’re implying.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:26 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
Apparently not when you disregard the "toward the neutral zone" language of the rule book.
This has been covered repeatedly
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:33 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:Let's try this again.
All that has to be intentional is the forward motion of the arm/hand
Here is the 2021 NCAA FB Rulebook.
quote:
FR-33
Fumble
ARTICLE 1. To fumble the ball is to lose player possession by any act other than passing, kicking or successful handing (A.R. 2-19-2-I and A.R. 4-1-3-I). The status of the ball is a fumble.
Now that we know what a fumble is defined as, and we know that the play in question is neither kicking nor successful handing (we can look at what that means, but I assume you'll take that as a given since those aren't in question), we are left with two options: the player fumbled the ball or the player passed the ball.
quote:
FR-37
Passing
ARTICLE 1. Passing the ball is throwing it. A pass continues to be a pass until it is caught or intercepted by a player or the ball becomes dead.
Here we see that a pass is a ball that is thrown. The word "throwing" by this definition has to exclude whatever is included in the word "fumble", so it has to also exclude handing the ball and kicking the ball, since whatever a throw is, it cannot be the same as a fumble. What, then, is a throw? Is a forward-moving drop a throw? Is the ball being knocked out of a forward-moving hand a throw? If so, then does it matter if the ball is dropped or forced out while in the forward-moving hand/arm of the ball carrier? If you've ever ran or seen others run, you'll know that a runner alternates moving their arms while running. A ball carrier could feasibly drop a ball or have a ball knocked out of their hand/arm while the hand/arm holding the ball is moving forward during the natural running process. Is that considered a "throw"? If so, then the word "throw" is meaningless, and includes obvious fumbles performed by running backs and other ball carriers with butterfingers.
In reality, the reason why this is never a topic of discussion is because it is well understood (even by those individuals and teams who are the victims of fumbled balls) that there is a difference between an intentional passing motion and a ball-carrying motion, though there are variations in both categories. When a player clearly has no intention to "throw" (or even pretend to "throw") a football but merely loses grip of it while positioning the ball while carrying (which is what happens when they extend the ball for yards/points), it is always called a fumble rather than an illegal forward pass. Everyone and their brother knows that a "pass" has some sort of intentionality behind it (either the intention to throw the ball or to fake a throw) while a fumble does not (except for the rare situation where an intentional fumble is identified and penalized, and those intentional fumbles could even possibly be identified as "throws" according to the ridiculous posters here).
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:35 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
How does the illegal forward lateral rule apply to this play?
It doesn't, it's what you're trying to argue.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
2021
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:39 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:I hope this isn't your rebuttal.
2021
If so, show me in the 2022 rule book where the rule was changed to support your argument.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:41 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
FR-33
Fumble
ARTICLE 1. To fumble the ball is to lose player possession by any act other than passing, kicking or successful handing (A.R. 2-19-2-I and A.R. 4-1-3-I). The status of the ball is a fumble.
Now that we know what a fumble is defined as, and we know that the play in question is neither kicking nor successful handing (we can look at what that means, but I assume you'll take that as a given since those aren't in question), we are left with two options: the player fumbled the ball or the player passed the ball.
Yes
quote:
knocked out of a forward-moving hand a throw? If so, then does it matter if the ball is dropped or forced out while in the forward-moving hand/arm of the ball carrier? If you've ever ran or seen others run, you'll know that a runner alternates moving their arms while running. A ball carrier could feasibly drop a ball or have a ball knocked out of their hand/arm while the hand/arm holding the ball is moving forward during the natural running process. Is that considered a "throw"? If so, then the word "throw" is meaningless, and includes obvious fumbles performed by running backs and other ball carriers with butterfingers.
Right that's the point
quote:
In reality, the reason why this is never a topic of discussion is because it is well understood (even by those individuals and teams who are the victims of fumbled balls) that there is a difference between an intentional passing motion and a ball-carrying motion, though there are variations in both categories. When a player clearly has no intention to "throw" (or even pretend to "throw") a football but merely loses grip of it while positioning the ball while carrying (which is what happens when they extend the ball for yards/points), it is always called a fumble rather than an illegal forward pass. Everyone and their brother knows that a "pass" has some sort of intentionality behind it (either the intention to throw the ball or to fake a throw) while a fumble does not (except for the rare situation where an intentional fumble is identified and penalized, and those intentional fumbles could even possibly be identified as "throws" according to the ridiculous posters here).
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.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:43 pm to Jon Ham
This particular example is a very easy call of fumble. Even debating it makes me feel retarded.
For this, see casebook for 2022:
quote:
Let’s say he is obviously pump faking to get a defender to jump and the ball is accidentally released during the forward motion of the pump fake.
For this, see casebook for 2022:
Posted on 9/26/22 at 3:44 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:
quoting the rulebook as the explanation is definitely not in what you're quoting.
Meh, I think it clearly defined a fumble, which is what happened as he was "handling the ball".
Posted on 9/26/22 at 4:03 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote: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'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 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.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 6:37 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
The whole point of including “toward the neutral zone” is to define what “forward” means
Wrong. That is absolutely not why the “toward the neutral zone language” is included. A “forward pass” is defined in 2-19-2-a (literally the bullet point immediately before the one you quoted).
quote:
not to insert a requirement that in order to attempt a forward pass you have to be behind the neutral zone.
The rule you quoted does not say you have to be behind the neutral zone to attempt a forward pass, and I never suggested that was what it meant.
It says that if you are behind the neutral zone and if you are holding the ball intending to pass it, the forward pass starts with any forward motion of the hand. In other words, that protection against fumble calls (any intentional forward arm movement starting the pass) only applies if you are attempting a legal forward pass. Consequently, it means you don’t have the same protection if you are past the neutral zone.
It is interesting that you used the words “attempt a forward pass,” though. Generally when somebody “attempts” to do something, it’s intentional.
quote:
If that were a requirement, then there could be no illegal forward passes, it would just be fumbles.
There can be illegal forward passes downfield if the passer intentionally throws the ball. Nothing I have said contradicts that.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 7:10 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
The whole point of including “toward the neutral zone” is to define what “forward” means, not to insert a requirement that in order to attempt a forward pass you have to be behind the neutral zone. If that were a requirement, then there could be no illegal forward passes, it would just be fumbles.
Just because this rule specifically explains what a forward pass is in the context of a player throwing from behind the LOS, it doesn’t negate what a forward pass is when the player is beyond the LOS.
spot on
Page 9 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News