rai Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 I think it was a good call if he did spike (ie. throw) the ball forward. If he had made a catch and then made a forward pass it's a penalty but not a fumble, so as long as it was an intentional throw/spike and it went forward (not a lateral) than I think it is and incomplete pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 I'd just like to add that I feel horribly dirty being placed in the position of defending the Raiders. I wonder if that is actionable against the NFL? I will dig up all of your posts on this thread forever and ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 27, 2006 Author Share Posted November 27, 2006 I will dig up all of your posts on this thread forever and ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 27, 2006 Author Share Posted November 27, 2006 I think it was a good call if he did spike (ie. throw) the ball forward. If he had made a catch and then made a forward pass it's a penalty but not a fumble, so as long as it was an intentional throw/spike and it went forward (not a lateral) than I think it is and incomplete pass. How do you come to that conclusion? Jackson intentionally released possession of the football, and made no attempt to place another member of his team in possession of the football. The direction the football travels is irrelevant since the release of possession was clearly not an attempt to pass. By your argument, any fumble that moves forward on the field is actually an illegal pass - which is patently ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 so according to the NFL....if chad johnson is running untouched toward the endzone, and he stops at the 1 yard-line and rolls the ball at the back pylon like he's trying to pick up the 10 pin...the result is first and goal cincinnati at the 6 yardline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Point of clarification: I recall the Buress spike/fumble being behind him and not forward? Am I wrong? Just wondering if the two are really comparable if you want to compare the plays... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Point of clarification: I recall the Buress spike/fumble being behind him and not forward? Am I wrong? Just wondering if the two are really comparable if you want to compare the plays... Doing it backwards would be a "backwards pass" with their intrepretation of the rules, thus being a fumble when no recepient caught it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 How do you come to that conclusion? Jackson intentionally released possession of the football, and made no attempt to place another member of his team in possession of the football. The direction the football travels is irrelevant since the release of possession was clearly not an attempt to pass. By your argument, any fumble that moves forward on the field is actually an illegal pass - which is patently ridiculous. With an exception of a QB intentionally spiking the ball in order to stop the clock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rai Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 How do you come to that conclusion? Jackson intentionally released possession of the football, and made no attempt to place another member of his team in possession of the football. The direction the football travels is irrelevant since the release of possession was clearly not an attempt to pass. By your argument, any fumble that moves forward on the field is actually an illegal pass - which is patently ridiculous. youre missing the point, he intentionally threw the ball (spike/throw) he was not hit by another player or hit by the ground to cause a fumble. I see a lot of people throw the ball when there is no one in the area, it's not a fumble if it goes foward. That's the rules, if you don't like the rules thats fine, but don't say any spike is a fumble, QBs spike the ball all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 27, 2006 Author Share Posted November 27, 2006 With an exception of a QB intentionally spiking the ball in order to stop the clock. That's well defined in the rules. It's all about intent. You can also talk about a QB outside the tackle box throwing the ball out of bounds rather than to a receiver. To allow for another argument would be an argument that Jackson had an intent to pass the ball when he had possession of the ball, and that's absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rai Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 (edited) an argument that Jackson had an intent to pass the ball when he had possession of the ball, and that's absurd. There is no intent to it, it's the rules, lets say a QB intends to throw the ball but it slips out and goes backwards(a fumble), by your definition since he intended to do throw a forward pass then the fumble does not count. Jackson could have been intending to make monkeys fly out if his butt for all whe know,but the fact is the ball was thrown fowards after he was past the line of srimage and also after one legal forward pass so by rule it's an illegal pass as the refs called. Edited November 27, 2006 by rai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 I'm surprised only one person agrees with the NFL here - make it two. when an offensive player purposefully (and that's judgemental at times, but in this case it wasn't) throws the ball forward, it's a forward pass/lateral - subject to all rules thereof. When a qb spikes, it's under the QB spike rule (no int'l grounding). When he crosses the line of scrimmage, then throws it, it's an illegal forward pass. When a guy runs 20 yards, then goes to hand it to a guy right in front of him, but actually pitches it an inch...it's an illegal forward pass. i beleive I can picture Plax's idiocy in my mind, and he spiked it backward, thereby being a lateral and a live ball. now - if you roll it forward, that's not a pass (but I also think it's not a live ball as it's a fumblerooski which the NFL outlawed) I think they got it right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 (but I also think it's not a live ball as it's a fumblerooski which the NFL outlawed) The NCAA outlawed it. The NFL doesn't try it since the defenses are too fast for it to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abishagenaden Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Not correct, as a player dropping the ball or a bad snap from the center are other examples of fumbles. But the ground can't cause a fumble. Yup, that's what I was thinking about. Forgot about the backward pass thing.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 27, 2006 Author Share Posted November 27, 2006 There is no intent to it, it's the rules, lets say a QB intends to throw the ball but it slips out and goes backwards(a fumble), by your definition since he intended to do throw a forward pass then the fumble does not count. Jackson could have been intending to make monkeys fly out if his butt for all whe know,but the fact is the ball was thrown fowards after he was past the line of srimage and also after one legal forward pass so by rule it's an illegal pass as the refs called. And so the entire game of football changes per rai because any player running downfield with the ball and then losing possession - as long as the ball moves forward - is never a fumble but rather is an illegal pass. Intention is meaningless. Please notify the NFL that they have been misinterpretting their own rules for several decades, and that the rule they put in place to negate "ladder" plays such as that run by the Raiders in the '70s were completely unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abishagenaden Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Perhaps there should be new rule enacted: "Should any idiot rookie or 2nd-year player throw the ball away in celebration without getting tackled, the opposing team immediately regains possession. Furthermore, excessive taunting against that idiot by the opposing team is allowed, but only until the next snap of the ball." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 actually, the only way to make sense of the ruling is to say that intent is all that really matters. not intent to pass the ball to a teammate, but intent to, well, just release the ball. if a guy just drops it and it goes forward, that is clearly a fumble. if the opposing team knocks it out and it goes forward, that is a fumble. but if the player intentionally lets go of the ball and it goes forward, it's an illegal forward pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilfish2 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 If history serves me right, I beleive it was Steve Walsh with the Saints. He took the snap to spike the ball to stop the clock, ball is goes forward. Officials call it a fumble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 There is no intent to it, it's the rules, lets say a QB intends to throw the ball but it slips out and goes backwards(a fumble), by your definition since he intended to do throw a forward pass then the fumble does not count. Not true, if the arm is determined to be moving forward when the ball come sout THEN it is determined the QB had intended to pass it, thus an incomplete not a fumble. Otherwise , A QB who is pumping the ball over his shoulder who drops it does just that- he drops it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz1 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Let me refresh your memory. Holy Roller! That is why this happened. Payback is a ......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 (edited) Doing it backwards would be a "backwards pass" with their intrepretation of the rules, thus being a fumble when no recepient caught it. i beleive I can picture Plax's idiocy in my mind, and he spiked it backward, thereby being a lateral and a live ball. This is what I was remembering as well. Therefore the two plays are not really comparable - if we're remembering the Burress play correctly. Burress was clearly a fumble since it was behind him. I can kinda see both sides on the Jackson play. Edited November 27, 2006 by The Irish Doggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 I don't know what the NFL's definition of forward pass is, but that wasn't a forward pass. I think that players could use this ruling to their advantage. Say that there are seconds left on the clock, and the ball carrier gets stuck in the open field. He could flip the ball forward, underhanded even, stopping the clock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavinRJohnson Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 And so the entire game of football changes per rai because any player running downfield with the ball and then losing possession - as long as the ball moves forward - is never a fumble but rather is an illegal pass. Intention is meaningless. Please notify the NFL that they have been misinterpretting their own rules for several decades, and that the rule they put in place to negate "ladder" plays such as that run by the Raiders in the '70s were completely unnecessary. The key point you are missing BB, is it was ruled an illegal forward pass because of the action of the ball carrier throwing/spinning/tossing the ball forward. It would have been correctly ruled a fumble if the action of another player caused the ball to be lost by the ball carrier and the ball went forward. Any ball that is 'fumbled' forward is not an illegal forward pass. If a DB runs down a WR and puches the ball out of the WRs hands and it goes forward, it's still a fumble as it has been correctly interpreted for decades. In your example if a player is all alone and is running downfield just drops the ball forward....you are correct, I would think that would also be ruled an illegal forward pass as long as the ball moves forward. It seems they made the correct call. It's definitely a stupid rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 I don't know what the NFL's definition of forward pass is, but that wasn't a forward pass. I think that players could use this ruling to their advantage. Say that there are seconds left on the clock, and the ball carrier gets stuck in the open field. He could flip the ball forward, underhanded even, stopping the clock. Would the 10 second clock runoff rule apply as for other penalties occuring in hurry-up plays within the last 2 minutes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 I don't know what the NFL's definition of forward pass is, but that wasn't a forward pass. I think that players could use this ruling to their advantage. Say that there are seconds left on the clock, and the ball carrier gets stuck in the open field. He could flip the ball forward, underhanded even, stopping the clock. Isn't a penalty by the offense near the end of the game grounds for a automatic runoff on the clock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.