Rule on arm moving forward

[CalPolyTechnique]

Is that allowed?

It’s permitted but frowned upon.

 

[Runwildboys]

I was pretty sure that was going to be ruled as arm moving forward while seeing it in real time.

The officials got it right.

Honestly, in real time I thought it was a fumble, but the first replay made it pretty clear.

 

[blueblood70]

Thank you! Wow, what a rarity on this site!

Look i see the rule i know why they called it that way but you are seeing his arm come forward and im seeing his hips and shoulder truing and his hand/arm never coming past neutral ie behind his head etc to me that not moving forward as the arm and hand didn't get passed his helmet..

Yes i see he cocks back with twist and his motion of hip and shoulder unwind but the hand/arm never get passed his shoulder and head alignment and that why i saw it looks like a fumble..

by rule its right but as football guy i say its fumble.

example like a runner or car at starting line if why backed up and motion was started forward the clock doesnt start until they pas the official line..to me the arm never got to the starting line but not arguing the rule wasn't followed, the rule is flawed if that considered a full passing motion..

ex 2 like in the NBA when they go back at a clock expiring shot and look at his feet and the ball, the ball must have left his hand completely before the red light to make it count none of the motion or the release matter its the ball getting off his hand, to me that not passing motion until it gets past his shoulder. Head alignment which i call neutral, you know where he started to bring his arm fully back..

i know weird but its just how i view it..

doesn't matter we won its moot point. just a differing viewpoint..

now the waller fumble was fumble LOL

more rules that subjective viewpoints are offered.. might have been huge pay for that close loss..

 

[Runwildboys]

Look i see the rule i know why they called it that way but you are seeing his arm come forward and im seeing his hips and shoulder truing and his hand/arm never coming past neutral ie behind his head etc to me that not moving forward as the arm and hand didn't get passed his helmet..

Yes i see he cocks back with twist and his motion of hip and shoulder unwind but the hand/arm never get passed his shoulder and head alignment and that why i saw it looks like a fumble..

by rule its right but as football guy i say its fumble.

example like a runner or car at starting line if why backed up and motion was started forward the clock doesnt start until they pas the official line..to me the arm never got to the starting line but not arguing the rule wasn't followed, the rule is flawed if that considered a full passing motion..

ex 2 like in the NBA when they go back at a clock expiring shot and look at his feet and the ball, the ball must have left his hand completely before the red light to make it count none of the motion or the release matter its the ball getting off his hand, to me that not passing motion until it gets past his shoulder. Head alignment which i call neutral, you know where he started to bring his arm fully back..

i know weird but its just how i view it..

doesn't matter we won its moot point. just a differing viewpoint..

now the waller fumble was fumble LOL

more rules that subjective viewpoints are offered.. might have been huge pay for that close loss..

You're overcomplicating it. It doesn't matter whether the ball is in front of his head or not. The ball is clearly moving forward. Just look at it in comparison to the wall behind him. There's nothing in the rules that states that a pass occurs once it goes beyond the QB's head. If that were one of the criteria, half of Mahomes's sidearm throws wouldn't be passes.

 

[Sydla]

Look i see the rule i know why they called it that way but you are seeing his arm come forward and im seeing his hips and shoulder truing and his hand/arm never coming past neutral ie behind his head etc to me that not moving forward as the arm and hand didn't get passed his helmet..

Yes i see he cocks back with twist and his motion of hip and shoulder unwind but the hand/arm never get passed his shoulder and head alignment and that why i saw it looks like a fumble..

by rule its right but as football guy i say its fumble.

example like a runner or car at starting line if why backed up and motion was started forward the clock doesnt start until they pas the official line..to me the arm never got to the starting line but not arguing the rule wasn't followed, the rule is flawed if that considered a full passing motion..

ex 2 like in the NBA when they go back at a clock expiring shot and look at his feet and the ball, the ball must have left his hand completely before the red light to make it count none of the motion or the release matter its the ball getting off his hand, to me that not passing motion until it gets past his shoulder. Head alignment which i call neutral, you know where he started to bring his arm fully back..

i know weird but its just how i view it..

doesn't matter we won its moot point. just a differing viewpoint..

now the waller fumble was fumble LOL

more rules that subjective viewpoints are offered.. might have been huge pay for that close loss..

His arm is clearly coming forward. It’s mind numbing that we have fans still trying to argue that it wasn’t.

It’s embarrassing for the rest of Cowboys nation that some fans are so homeristic they can’t acknowledge something so obvious.

 

[MarcusRock]

Thank you! Wow, what a rarity on this site!

How come you get all the sane posters? That's unfair!

 

[TheHerd]

By the letter of the rule, it's an incomplete pass. As is the tuck rule. I think the point isn't was it a fumble per the current rule - it was clearly an incomplete pass. But both this rule and the tuck rule seem to be kinda dumb. If the ball didn't leave his hand going forward, how it that a pass? If the QB is attempting to tuck the ball away and clearly not trying to pass the ball anymore but fumbles, how is that an incomplete pass?

Again, I'm not questioning the call on the play - it was 100% the correct call. I'm only making the case both this rule and the tuck rule are flawed and don't really make sense.

 

[Runwildboys]

How come you get all the sane posters? That's unfair!

They know I'm really a Cowboys fan.

 

[blueblood70]

You're overcomplicating it. It doesn't matter whether the ball is in front of his head or not. The ball is clearly moving forward. Just look at it in comparison to the wall behind him. There's nothing in the rules that states that a pass occurs once it goes beyond the QB's head. If that were one of the criteria, half of Mahomes's sidearm throws wouldn't be passes.

i realize this but that why the confusion sets in for some of us hes still in his back swing per say and while his body and hip and coming around and forward the arm has yet to do so from where it started. Its why you have to view it by rule sure and yes theres forward momentum i get that and we won doesn't matter anymore..

waller fumbled....

Hill get suspended but those other in fractions like lamb getting choked out are no calls

obvious rake of the face mask and helmet also no call in the NO game..i got 100 should i go on LOL

yes dez caught it LOL

 

[Runwildboys]

i realize this but that why the confusion sets in for some of us hes still in his back swing per say and while his body and hip and coming around and forward the arm has yet to do so from where it started. Its why you have to view it by rule sure and yes theres forward momentum i get that and we won doesn't matter anymore..

waller fumbled....

Hill get suspended but those other in fractions like lamb getting choked out are no calls

obvious rake of the face mask and helmet also no call in the NO game..i got 100 should i go on LOL

yes dez caught it LOL

I agree that Waller fumbled, simply because I feel he turned upfield enough to constitute a football move.

But you can clearly see the arm and ball moving forward in relation to the background in this clip, and the camera isn't moving, so the only conclusion to be made is that it was a pass attempt. If you can come up with a better way to define a pass, that would be easier to understand and make it less of a judgement call by the officials, I'm ready to listen. (as it were)

 

[blueblood70]

I agree that Waller fumbled, simply because I feel he turned upfield enough to constitute a football move.

But you can clearly see the arm and ball moving forward in relation to the background in this clip, and the camera isn't moving, so the only conclusion to be made is that it was a pass attempt. If you can come up with a better way to define a pass, that would be easier to understand and make it less of a judgement call by the officials, I'm ready to listen. (as it were)

upfield also not the only thing that fals under "football move" i know Rbs that run sideways and backwards before then going forward..its fumble in everyway imaginable way 2 full steps moves toward the sideline is a move..that third step which shouldnt be in the equation as two feet in bounds at the sideline enough for catch along the sideline with zero moves..

these rules are stupid LOL if you catch the ball with two feet planed on the ground in any way moving or not its catch it was secured..

the refs that game had some sort of oddball agenda. it was a horrible called game on both sides but our were all momentum game changing larger moment calls..they literally cost us a game..

 

[MarcusRock]

upfield also not the only thing that fals under "football move" i know Rbs that run sideways and backwards before then going forward..its fumble in everyway imaginable way 2 full steps moves toward the sideline is a move..that third step which shouldnt be in the equation as two feet in bounds at the sideline enough for catch along the sideline with zero moves..

these rules are stupid LOL if you catch the ball with two feet planed on the ground in any way moving or not its catch it was secured..

the refs that game had some sort of oddball agenda. it was a horrible called game on both sides but our were all momentum game changing larger moment calls..they literally cost us a game..

Moving towards the sideline is not a move. Lol. That's what the 3rd step is for and it IS what applied there, IMO. Since he didn't take the 3rd step and the ball was out before, that's why it was incomplete. The rules say you have to look at what happens AFTER the second foot comes down. If you're already headed upfield at that point, you can't then "turn" upfield.

 

[blueblood70]

Moving towards the sideline is not a move. Lol. That's what the 3rd step is for and it IS what applied there, IMO. Since he didn't take the 3rd step and the ball was out before, that's why it was incomplete. The rules say you have to look at what happens AFTER the second foot comes down. If you're already headed upfield at that point, you can't then "turn" upfield.

the field is the field bro moving sideway is part of moving within the boundary's. the fields the field..like i said stupid move and his 3rd step hit at the same time the ball was being hit it was a fumble!!

evading a defender is a MOVE changing direction is a move, ugh

 

[KJJ]

It looked to me like the ball was coming out just before his hand was moving forward. I always thought that was a fumble.

 

[Cowpolk]

No it was not. The rule states the ball never went forward after he lost it

His arm and hand went foreword it was a pass

 

[Captain-Crash]

no fumble begging.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I think its a great example of the NFL making up a very technical rule that both defies common sense (imagine trying to understand what constitutes a catch and/or fumble as a layperson) and puts more power in the officials hands to affect the game.

I really don't care about this particular rule, to be honest. I am trying to make a point that the NFL, overall, employs many nonsensical rules that only make sense because they consistently employ them, and that these overly technical, nonsensical rules degrade the quality of the game.

Well for the reasons you give is some of the reasons you leave this rule alone. Letting the officials decide if it was a botched pass or a true fumble would create a world of mess.
My philosophy is the less you allow refs to make the decisions of whether it was one thing or another the better for the game.

 

[Cowpolk]

It was a pass block not a fumble

 

[kskboys]

By the letter of the rule, it's an incomplete pass. As is the tuck rule. I think the point isn't was it a fumble per the current rule - it was clearly an incomplete pass. But both this rule and the tuck rule seem to be kinda dumb. If the ball didn't leave his hand going forward, how it that a pass? If the QB is attempting to tuck the ball away and clearly not trying to pass the ball anymore but fumbles, how is that an incomplete pass?

Again, I'm not questioning the call on the play - it was 100% the correct call. I'm only making the case both this rule and the tuck rule are flawed and don't really make sense.

Why?

I agree on the tuck rule, and that was a SCREW U rule aimed at Al Davis who kept fighting the NFL on everything.

In this case, however, you are asking to make a good objective rule into a subjective rule w/ huge grey areas. Think about the confusion it would cause to change the rule to what you are proposing.

 

[kskboys]

Well for the reasons you give is some of the reasons you leave this rule alone. Letting the officials decide if it was a botched pass or a true fumble would create a world of mess.
My philosophy is the less you allow refs to make the decisions of whether it was one thing or another the better for the game.

Very well said.

I really don't think those who are proposing a rule change are even considering the ramifications of what they are asking.