Rule on arm moving forward

[boysbeyond4ever]

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

That could be the case, but the question is is that still a standard in any circumstance, or not?

I'm fine if it's not for the same reason as you are, I'm just concerned if that is truly the case. Not questioning you, but rather whether refs still have that latitude which I prefer they not have as you prefer it also.

 

[Runwildboys]

That could be the case, but the question is is that still a standard in any circumstance, or not?

I'm fine if it's not for the same reason as you are, I'm just concerned if that is truly the case. Not questioning you, but rather whether refs still have that latitude which I prefer they not have as you prefer it also.

I'm not completely sure what you mean, but to me, having an empty hand before the arm moves forward doesn't afford them any latitude at all. Either it's empty or it's not. That's why I think it's the most definitive and consistent way to rule it.

 

[Kevinicus]

no its not look at it again down this thread its not really ever moving forward until the ball is already touched and loose along with his wrist stopped dead against the defenders arm..very close could go wither way

ill stand by my eyes..looks to be fumble to me.

Your eyes are awful. Go to the eye doctor immediately...make sure someone else drives.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

Since apparently the 2nd post of the thread is too difficult to read... let me quote it here.

Here is the rule. It was a forward pass as soon as his hand started moving forward.

Item 1. Forward Movement of Hand

When a player is in control of the ball and is attempting to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass.

If, after intentional forward movement of his hand, contact by an opponent materially affects the passer, causing the ball to go backward, it is a forward pass, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else.
If, after an intentional forward movement of his hand, the passer loses possession of the ball during an attempt to bring it back toward his body, it is a fumble.
If the passer loses possession of the ball while attempting to re-cock his arm, it is a fumble.

 

[Sydla]

i said gray area..super slowmo could have gone either way how about the facemask face slap on dak no call, called all year for less..i mean keep,it even.. do i need to go back to the raiders calls?no calls..very uneven they owe us few..)

Super slo mo couldn't go either way. On replay, in slow motion, it was as clear as day his arm was going forward.

You are the example of when homerism goes awry. You can't even admit that a call that didn't go our way was absolutely the correct call.

 

[Sydla]

It was a fumble. The ball itself has to go forward for it to be a forward pass. The ball went backwards.

It was a fumble.

It went backwards because it was redirected by Lawrence.

It's only a lateral IF the ball is physically thrown backwards. That ball was not "thrown" backwards.

It's downright embarrassing to see Cowboys fans actually try to argue this the other way when it's clear as day what happened when seeing the replay.

 

[Sydla]

You literally made that up. Arm location is irrelevant.

It's flabbergasting to watch fellow Cowboys fans see the replay, have the rule explained to them and they are still trying to come up with a way to complain that the refs hosed us there.

 

[Sydla]

That’s not true at all

It's not true that his arm was moving forward?

 

[Sydla]

The rule doesn't apply here though, it shouldn't have. No matter what his arm did, the ball has to move forward for it to be a forward pass. Yes his arm moved forward, but the ball went backwards and was therefore a fumble.

Why did the ball go backwards?

Because Lawrence hit the ball with his wrist/forearm. Therefore, it can't be a fumble if his arm is moving forward. It is not a lateral. LOL, you guys have to be trolling at this point.

 

[Sydla]

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.

It's not the same thing. It can't be a lateral if the defender physically makes the ball go backwards.

So by the rule, when his arm is coming forward that's considered a forward pass (you may not like the rule but that's the rule, when his arm starts forward with the ball in his hand, it cannot be a lateral if the defender makes the ball go backwards). When Lawrence then hits the ball backwards, that's not a lateral, it's an incomplete pass.

This happens all the time, where an edge guy hits the arm of the QB as it goes forward and the ball goes backwards. It's not considered a lateral because the defender made the ball go backwards.

Do you not watch football?

 

[Runwildboys]

It's not true that his arm was moving forward?

He was saying the arm didn't move around 12 inches. I don't know, maybe it was closer to 10 inches.

 

[MarcusRock]

It was a pass

And Bernice the cow accepted your pass so we'll give you two the privacy you deserve.

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't know, maybe it was closer to 10 inches.

That's what she said. That's also the face she made.

 

[Runwildboys]

That's what she said. That's also the face she made.

LMAO! You saw that? Guess I have to pull my shades down all the way from down on!

 

[MarcusRock]

LMAO! You saw that? Guess I have to pull my shades down all the way from down on!

Dang. Touché. Thought I won the internet with that one.

 

[nyc-cowboy]

That's what she said. That's also the face she made.

Then you woke up. ; )

 

[Cowpolk]

And Bernice the cow accepted your pass so we'll give you two the privacy you deserve.

Bernice is a sheep

 

[JustChip]

@silvernblu isn’t arguing that play wasn’t a pass by the rule. He’s just questioning should the rule be changed to make it a pass only after the QB releases the ball. I have no issue with the rule as it is. But it does make sense on some level that until the QB releases the ball, it should be a fumble if it’s forced out of his hand by a defender. But we’re talking about a very, very low occurrence so let it stay as-is. The NFL has waaaay bigger issues to address.

 

[Gaede]

They have to have some definitive point at which to determine that it's a pass. The arm moving forward with the ball firmly in the hand is the least subjective way to call it. If you want to say it's a pass once it leaves the hand, then you're giving the officials a lot of leeway to decide when they think the ball is coming out.

I think its pretty straightforward actually. When you throw something, the second it leaves your hand, it's a throw. The hand has to release the ball to make it a throw.

 

[Gaede]

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

Totally understand them calling it the way they did. I just think it highlights a rule that technically makes no sense.