Illegal forward pass by SD (also Fasano vs Colts)

[lspain1]

If it's ridiculous to call it a forward pass its ridiculous to say it was a fumble, in my opinion. I think it was the correct call.

So, let's talk about the implications of your approach. Anytime the receiver's hand is moving forward after making the catch, he's trying to pass the ball and there's no fumble right? Ridiculous!

If you put the ball on the ground, it has to be fumble. Nothing else works IMO.

 

[theogt]

So, let's talk about the implications of your approach. Anytime the receiver's hand is moving forward after making the catch, he's trying to pass the ball and there's no fumble right? Ridiculous!

If you put the ball on the ground, it has to be fumble. Nothing else works IMO.

Read the rest of my post (I edited) and what I said should make more sense.

Basically, he didn't fumble the ball. He intentionally laid it forward. Sure he wasn't passing it, but he certainly wasn't fumbling it either.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Wasn't it the Raiders that got screwed by the mysterious "Brady Tuck Rule" a couple of years ago in the playoffs ??

Now this ?

 

[theogt]

Wasn't it the Raiders that got screwed by the mysterious "Brady Tuck Rule" a couple of years ago in the playoffs ??

Now this ?

An intentional forward fumble, according to the rules, is a forward pass, whether there's a receiver or not. The player intentionally fumbled the ball forward. Therefore, it was a forward pass. A forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage is an illegal forward pass, which results in a 5 yard penalty from the spot of the foul.

 

[speedkilz88]

Fasano's play was not the same thing. He had possession and the refs blew the whistle when he was down. The play was over, period. It shouldn't have even been looked at.

In this case the whistle was never blown and Jackson threw the ball down.

The only way Fasano's could have been ruled a fumble is if the ball had come out before the whistle and then the opponent jumped on it. (That is what the new rule is for so that it is still reviewable)

 

[Tra_Col99]

Plexico Burris got up off the turf and Spiked the ball. Thus it was a fumble.


They got the Burris Call correct...and this one too...according to the rule book.

My 2 cents

 

[Future]

Uh, isn't a forward lateral a fumble anyways???

Its the same as a backwards lateral, if a team "intercepts" a forward lateral, do they not get the ball?

this is very confusing

 

[theogt]

Uh, isn't a forward lateral a fumble anyways???

Its the same as a backwards lateral, if a team "intercepts" a forward lateral, do they not get the ball?

this is very confusing

An intentional forward fumble is a forward pass.

 

[superpunk]

An intentional forward fumble is a forward pass.

It's unfortunate because what happened is not what the rule is intended to prevent. Jackson did something stupid and got bailed by a technicality. The right call, but unfortunate, as the spirit of the rule is to keep them from throwing it forward.

What if a RB is running alone, and grips the ball too tightly, raining, and it flys forward? This is not a fumble? I'm sure Ive seen that. What about fumbling forward (it must be) out of the end zone, resulting in a turnover? Why isn't that an illegal forward pass?

 

[theogt]

It's unfortunate because what happened is not what the rule is intended to prevent. Jackson did something stupid and got bailed by a technicality. The right call, but unfortunate, as the spirit of the rule is to keep them from throwing it forward.

What if a RB is running alone, and grips the ball too tightly, raining, and it flys forward? This is not a fumble? I'm sure Ive seen that. What about fumbling forward (it must be) out of the end zone, resulting in a turnover? Why isn't that an illegal forward pass?

The question is whether or not it is an intentional fumble. In both scenarios you suggested, they're likely to not be considered intentional.

 

[Hostile]

It's kind of ironic that this call bit the Raiders in the rear end. It's their own fault that the rule exists anyway. Or have they conveniently forgotten the Ken Stabler and Dave Casper forward fumbles that resulted in the rule to begin with?

Okay, that said, I don't think Vincent Jackson was doing the same thing Stabler & Casprer did which is to say they intenionally fumbled the ball to gain more yardage. Jackson was simply stupid. It should have been Raiders football.

First the tuck rule with Tom Brady and now this.

 

[theogt]

It's kind of ironic that this call bit the Raiders in the rear end. It's their own fault that the rule exists anyway. Or have they conveniently forgotten the Ken Stabler and Dave Casper forward fumbles that resulted in the rule to begin with?

Okay, that said, I don't think Vincent Jackson was doing the same thing Stabler & Casprer did which is to say they intenionally fumbled the ball to gain more yardage. Jackson was simply stupid. It should have been Raiders football.

First the tuck rule with Tom Brady and now this.

Yeah, the rule should probably be changed to read, "... intentionally fumbling forward to gain yardage ... "

 

[Hostile]

Yeah, the rule should probably be changed to read, "... intentionally fumbling forward to gain yardage ... "

Exactly.

 

[Viper]

I am not complaing about anything.

I thought this was interesting food for thought and that we could all discuss for clarification.

This is a forum isnt it? A forum is a place to express opinions and have intellectual conversation. If you want to twist words and attack 1 another I suggest the Pretenders' forums. They seem to be a hostile environment at the moment.

Attack, you actually felt my reply was an attack? C’mon, you are kidding right? Actually I thought I was responding to your statement: “I have a funny feeling we would have gotten the short end of the stick and been forced to give that ball up. Any thoughts?” Which was separated from the main body of your thread.

Your thread is/was a good topic for a thread. It’s your slight complaint (yes, it’s a complaint) afterwards that threw me off. Sorry I can’t intelligently discuss a hypothetical situation happening to the Cowboys going against us.

 

[cowboys19]

So what Fasano did if he wasen't touched is considered a illegal forward pass?

So why the **** was the refs challanging it? or did those refs calling the game didn't know the rule?

man if the defender didn't touch fasano and they over turned it, man imagine the outrage

dumb dumb dumb

 

[speedkilz88]

So what Fasano did if he wasen't touched is considered a illegal forward pass?

So why the **** was the refs challanging it? or did those refs calling the game didn't know the rule?

man if the defender didn't touch fasano and they over turned it, man imagine the outrage

dumb dumb dumb

The whistle had been blown before he put the ball down. That play would never have been overturned. The only error the refs made was by actually looking at it. They probably thought that maybe Dungy saw the ball come out.

 

[Viper]

The whistle had been blown before he put the ball down. That play would never have been overturned. The only error the refs made was by actually looking at it. They probably thought that maybe Dungy saw the ball come out.

Didn't they have to look at it, When Dungy threw in the red flag?

 

[speedkilz88]

Didn't they have to look at it, When Dungy threw in the red flag?

Sometimes they will talk the coach out of the challenge by explaining their ruling on the field isn't going to be over-ruled. I think Dungy was trying to pull a rabbit out of his @## and at the very least having a long timeout.

 

[cowboyed]

Its rules like this that are getting ridicilous that should be a fumble.

It's getting to the point that you need some sort of NFL rules attorney at each game to help interpret matters with the refs. I think it must be some quantumm physicists that are tweaking the modern game of football.

 

[tyke1doe]

Sometimes it is a matter of concentration rather than stupidity. Sometimes it is a matter of both like Leon Lett on that Thanksgiving Day game against Miami.

Ur, Stupidity.