Rule on arm moving forward

[silvernblu]

Best look here for folks that don't believe that the arm was going forward.

I think the distinction should be made here:

If it hits the ball and is the cause of the ball Bering ripped away from the grip it should be a fumble.

 

[cmoney23]

It's correct by the rule. And that rule had been well used and enforced over the years.

But I feel like what happened last night was a fumble and simply because he only hit the ball that was cleanly in his possession still when he hit it.

It's not a Fumble because of the rule. But it was a Fumble.

 

[Rack]

The ball moved forward before being hit by DLaw. The arm and the ball were both moving forward when the ball was knocked out of his hand. The direction in which the ball was deflected is irrelevant, just as it would be in the case of a fumble.

No. The ball has toove forward after being release by the QB's hand for it to be a forward pass.

The ball did not go forward after leaving his hand. The ball was literally pushed backwards off his hand by DLaw.

I'm sure you've seen those dollie videos where the QB goes to throw the ball bit it goes backwards? Same concept.

It was a fumble.

 

[nyc-cowboy]

exactly who cares if arm coming forward. Still have possession and ball knocked out fumble. If ball leaves your hand first then touched incomplete pass. Common sense

It has nothing to do with common sense - its the rule - arm going forward...

Its the rule you dont like.

Its like the catch rule - why does the WR have to have 2 feet on the ground (old rule) - he caught the ball - common sense

 

[nyc-cowboy]

It's correct by the rule. And that rule had been well used and enforced over the years.

But I feel like what happened last night was a fumble and simply because he only hit the ball that was cleanly in his possession still when he hit it.

It's not a Fumble because of the rule. But it was a Fumble.

So thats like that one handed catch by CeeDee - it not a catch because of the rule, but it was a catch.

 

[AshyLarry06]

Another rule that defies common sense. The ball hasn't left his hand. How can it be a throw if it's still in his hand?

That is what made it confusing for me. Obv it's clear that his arm was moving forward, but the ball never left his hand, which is what made me think that maybe it could be an exception to the rule and be ruled as a fumble.

That being said, I don't believe there is anything in the rulebook that differentiates between a passer's arm moving forward with or without the ball having left their hand. Because of that, I was not surprised for the play to be ruled an incomplete pass. If they did rule it a fumble, there would have been insane backlash over the call bc the arm was CLEARLY moving forward and it seemingly doesnt matter that the ball never left Hill's inept hand...

BUT i still think it was a fumble lol

 

[silvernblu]

It's correct by the rule. And that rule had been well used and enforced over the years.

But I feel like what happened last night was a fumble and simply because he only hit the ball that was cleanly in his possession still when he hit it.

It's not a Fumble because of the rule. But it was a Fumble.

Exactly my point. Agreed.

 

[MarcusRock]

Thank goodness - there is still hope for humanity.

How anyone can see that shot and not have the same reaction is beyond me.

This is why I find this place so fascinating at times. People will literally make stuff up to lie to themselves with to be able to say they were "wronged" or done dirty by refs and the league. It's like they want to be upset and have a gripe as an ax to wield in the fight. A fight they made up in the first place. Are you not entertained? I am. Lol.

 

[aikemirv]

Best look here for folks that don't believe that the arm was going forward.

Everybody believes it. Some just don't like the rule or understand the reason for it.

 

[gimmesix]

Just on common sense, it was clear that that ball was in his hand firmly and was knocked out before he released it as part of a throw. The arm was well behind the head.

I don't get that rule at all. Does someone want to explain why that SHOULD be a forward pass?

It's hard for the officials to determine if the quarterback is releasing the ball or if it was knocked out. We don't really need to have another play turned into a judgment call. So I'm fine with the QB's arm going forward being the standard, just like I'd prefer two feet down with control (the ball not moving in the player's hands) being the standard for a reception. Officials having determine if the player made a football move creates bad calls.

 

[Runwildboys]

No. The ball has toove forward after being release by the QB's hand for it to be a forward pass.

The ball did not go forward after leaving his hand. The ball was literally pushed backwards off his hand by DLaw.

I'm sure you've seen those dollie videos where the QB goes to throw the ball bit it goes backwards? Same concept.

It was a fumble.

If the ball went backwards without the defender being the cause, then it would be a fumble. If the arm and the ball are moving forward in the process of an attempted pass, then it's considered a pass, regardless of what direction the defender causes the ball to go.

 

[nyc-cowboy]

Are you not entertained? I am. Lol.

I dont know, it kind of makes me sad.

 

[Runwildboys]

Everybody believes it. Some just don't like the rule or understand the reason for it.

No, some people seem to think the officials called it wrong.

 

[Runwildboys]

So thats like that one handed catch by CeeDee - it not a catch because of the rule, but it was a catch.

That's right. It doesn't matter that he was OB. He caught it, so it's a catch. Lol

 

[Runwildboys]

That is what made it confusing for me. Obv it's clear that his arm was moving forward, but the ball never left his hand, which is what made me think that maybe it could be an exception to the rule and be ruled as a fumble.

That being said, I don't believe there is anything in the rulebook that differentiates between a passer's arm moving forward with or without the ball having left their hand. Because of that, I was not surprised for the play to be ruled an incomplete pass. If they did rule it a fumble, there would have been insane backlash over the call bc the arm was CLEARLY moving forward and it seemingly doesnt matter that the ball never left Hill's inept hand...

BUT i still think it was a fumble lol

I assume you've heard the announcers at some point refer to the phrase "empty hand". That's when the ball is out of the QB's hand BEFORE the arm starts moving forward. That's a fumble. If the ball is in his hand when the arm starts moving forward, it's a pass.

 

[nyc-cowboy]

If the ball went backwards without the defender being the cause, then it would be a fumble. If the arm and the ball are moving forward in the process of an attempted pass, then it's considered a pass, regardless of what direction the defender causes the ball to go.

I give you a lot of credit for trying to explain...

 

[Runwildboys]

It's correct by the rule. And that rule had been well used and enforced over the years.

But I feel like what happened last night was a fumble and simply because he only hit the ball that was cleanly in his possession still when he hit it.

It's not a Fumble because of the rule. But it was a Fumble.

If you were to define a pass as occurring once the ball leaves the hand, then you're leaving it up to the officials to decide when they think it left his hand. The last thing we want is a more subjective rule that gives them more latitude. The arm coming forward is much easier to see.

 

[boysbeyond4ever]

I understand your POV, but it's the least subjective way to define it and have consistency, and not give the officials more latitude to change games

Agree - if that is the rule, period. I would prefer this be the rule for the consistency's sake, which is better for the game Which is to say I have not heard anything to suggest there is no "empty hand" ruling any longer. I haven't found anything to indicate that is the case or is not the case.

 

[Runwildboys]

Agree - if that is the rule, period. I would prefer this be the rule for the consistency's sake, which is better for the game Which is to say I have not heard anything to suggest there is no "empty hand" ruling any longer. I haven't found anything to indicate that is the case or is not the case.

I don't know if the phrase "empty hand" was ever written in the rule book, but it was repeatedly used as a way to describe the rule

 

[Cowpolk]

It was a pass