Why was the Holloman play not a sack/turnover?

[RoyTheHammer]

Technically- his lower wrist bones were moving in a forward direction, but his outer finger bones were moving backwards.
After a thorough microscopic replay-
I have determined...

Yes.

lol

Post of the day.

 

[5Stars]

Technically- his lower wrist bones were moving in a forward direction, but his outer finger bones were moving backwards.
After a thorough microscopic replay-
I have determined...

Yes.

WTH....?

(stupid cowboy fans)

 

[ejthedj]

It doesn't matter what direction his arm was going. The ball went backwards and it wasn't tipped backwards. That's a lateral. A live ball. Any other rule makes the whole decision subjective, based on what the refs think about the direction of the wrist and finger bones (lol). A pass that goes backwards is a backward pass. Period.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

It doesn't matter what direction his arm was going. The ball went backwards and it wasn't tipped backwards. That's a lateral. A live ball. Any other rule makes the whole decision subjective, based on what the refs think about the direction of the wrist and finger bones (lol). A pass that goes backwards is a backward pass. Period.

Except, not period.. and that's why it wasn't a fumble.

 

[AsthmaField]

His arm was coming forward when the ball was knocked out.

Im really not sure what part of this some don't seem to be able to grasp.

Right, so it was a pass then, not a fumble. However, a backwards pass... even if it is incomplete... is a live ball and still should have been Dallas ball if they recovered.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Right, so it was a pass then, not a fumble. However, a backwards pass... even if it is incomplete... is a live ball and still should have been Dallas ball if they recovered.

Its not a backward pass or a lateral unless the QB is actually looking to throw that pass. If he goes to throw and gets hit.. i don't think its considered a backward pass.

 

[AsthmaField]

Its not a backward pass or a lateral unless the QB is actually looking to throw that pass. If he goes to throw and gets hit.. i don't think its considered a backward pass.

I'm not so sure they look at intent when there is a backward pass, although you may be correct.

Personally, I think the refs were just looking to see if it was a fumble or a pass and once they determined it was a pass, just called it incomplete. I feel like they simply didn't think about the fact that it went backwards and just made a mistake.

 

[jblaze2004]

Its not a backwards pass unless you throw the ball backwards.. if the ball gets batted backwards, its not the same.

a battled ball most-likely went forward first and the got batted backwards. The play in question the ball went straight backwards. It didn't go forward at all. It should be a backward pass/laterall which equals a fumble.

 

[jobberone]

If the arm is going forward then it's a forward pass. The fact the ball was batted to the rear is irrelevant. It is an incomplete pass as soon as it hits the ground. The hand may have been empty because it was really a FF but that wasn't the ruling on the field. I'm not sure if that is challengeable though.

 

[Hoofbite]

His arm was coming forward when the ball was knocked out.

Im really not sure what part of this some don't seem to be able to grasp.

I think the confusion is that a backwards pass is a fumble.

 

[hairic]

I think it's a fumble. The refs just made a strict ruling on arm motion. Go stand in front of a mirror and mimic throwing a football. At the top of it, the ball is up next to your head. As you throw, the ball moves out to your shoulder (or further). If you are standing perpendicular to the LOS (throwing towards the sideline/flats), the start of your throwing motion will have the ball traveling backwards before it goes forward. If you were facing downfield, the ball would be moving forward and this wouldn't matter. During that point is when the throwing motion was interrupted and was also the QB's orientation relative to the LOS. The throwing motion was going forward, ball was going backward, and ball is knocked out. If the ball slips from the QB's hand at that point from that position and travels the direction the arm was going, it'd be a backwards pass.

Standing perpendicular to the LOS, top of throwing motion:

Point of lost control:

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

I think the confusion is that a backwards pass is a fumble.

So a backward pass isn't a fumble?

 

[dargonking999]

In order to claim a backwards pass we have to have know for a fact he was attempting a backwards pass, because the defender interrupted the natural pass throwing motion of the QB, the refs are only able to then judge whether the arm was moving forward prior to the contact made by the defender. If it is, then the ball is incomplete, if not, then its a fumble. His arm was moving forward at the time of the hit hence the incomplete. As to whether or not he was attempting a backwards pass, is not for the refs to figure out., or make a call for it The ruling on the field was a sack/fumble. the challenge was whether or not it was a sack fumble or an attempt at a throw. The refs ruled his arm was coming forward a the time of the hit, hence the call of incomplete pass.

 

[Future]

In order to claim a backwards pass we have to have know for a fact he was attempting a backwards pass, because the defender interrupted the natural pass throwing motion of the QB, the refs are only able to then judge whether the arm was moving forward prior to the contact made by the defender. If it is, then the ball is incomplete, if not, then its a fumble. His arm was moving forward at the time of the hit hence the incomplete. As to whether or not he was attempting a backward, is not for the refs to figure out., or make a call for it The ruling on the field was a sack/fumble. the challenge was whether or not it was a sack fumble or an attempt at a throw. The refs ruled his arm was coming forward a the time of the hit, hence the call of incomplete pass.

So an attempted bubble screen that lands behind the line of scrimmage isn't a fumble b/c the QB didn't mean it?

Thats a freaking fumble and the refs blew it.

 

[dargonking999]

So an attempted bubble screen that lands behind the line of scrimmage isn't a fumble b/c the QB didn't mean it?

Thats a freaking fumble and the refs blew it.

An attempt at a bubble screen in which the QB gets hit before he finishes the throwing motion is not a fumble if his arm is going forward.

The refs cannot determine where the football was going to be upon the completion of the pass. They can only rule whether or not it was a sack/fumble or in the process of at throwing the football. Because his arm was going forward he was in the process of throwing the football. Which because the defender impeded the completion of the pass, it is an incomplete pass. The Refs cannot judge where the ball was intended to go, based on angle of arm, location of a target, which direction the ball went. None of that matters. All that matters is the play thats being reviewed. Which was whether or not his arm was going forward prior to the hit on the QB that forced the ball loose. you can argue what you want, the refs didn't miss the call. His arm was going forward hence an incomplete pass.

 

[Future]

An attempt at a bubble screen in which the QB gets hit before he finishes the throwing motion is not a fumble if his arm is going forward.

The refs cannot determine where the football was going to be upon the completion of the pass. They can only rule whether or not it was a sack/fumble or in the process of at throwing the football. Because his arm was going forward he was in the process of throwing the football. Which because the defender impeded the completion of the pass, it is an incomplete pass. The Refs cannot judge where the ball was intended to go, based on angle of arm, location of a target, which direction the ball went. None of that matters. All that matters is the play thats being reviewed. Which was whether or not his arm was going forward prior to the hit on the QB that forced the ball loose. you can argue what you want, the refs didn't miss the call. His arm was going forward hence an incomplete pass.

His arm would be going forward on a bubble screen that ends up going backwards.

The whole "I wasnt trying to do that" doesnt work. Sorry ref, "I wasn't trying to fumble." "I wasn't trying to hold this guy."

Unless they are saying that the ball came out going forward, and then got batted back, its a fumble. What about all those plays where a QB tries to throw and has the ball knocked out of their hand, but they still follow through. Thats still a fumble. Why isnt this one?

 

[ejthedj]

No dargonking, the only ruling that involves subjective judgment is the one that says that a ball that went backwards was actually meant to go forwards. In my interpretation, I know it was a fumble because the ball went backwards and was not tipped. That has nothing to do with intent. This was a blown call. No two ways around it. I've never seen a call that said "his arm was going forward even though the ball went backwards." That is just a trash interpretation that brings in so many subjective judgments. In fact, the rule says this exactly:

1. Any pass not forward is regarded as a backward pass. A pass parallel to the line is a backward pass. A runner may pass backward at any time.
2. A backward pass that strikes the ground can be recovered and advanced by either team.
3. A backward pass caught in the air can be advanced by either team.
4. A backward pass in flight may not be batted forward by an offensive player.

 

[locked&loaded]

It was a fumble. He hit his elbow before it was moving forward. the ball was never batted by the defender. annoying call. pre season ... whatever. I am sure our coaches are giving holloman credit for it.

 

[ejthedj]

Oh wow, they made the right call... It's just a stupid rule. This means the refs have to make judgment calls instead of paying attention to the actual flight of the ball. It's another ridiculous tuck rule.


http://static.nfl.co...Pass_Fumble.pdf



When a player is in control of the ball and attempting to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of
his hand starts a forward pass.
(a) If the passer is attempting to throw a forward pass, but contact by an opponent materially affects him,
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.

 

[dargonking999]

His arm would be going forward on a bubble screen that ends up going backwards.

The whole "I wasnt trying to do that" doesnt work. Sorry ref, "I wasn't trying to fumble." "I wasn't trying to hold this guy."

Unless they are saying that the ball came out going forward, and then got batted back, its a fumble. What about all those plays where a QB tries to throw and has the ball knocked out of their hand, but they still follow through. Thats still a fumble. Why isnt this one?

Again you can't judge intent when he never completed the throw, not only did he not complete the throw, he barely started his arm moving foward. There is no real way to know what direction that ball was going to go if holloman had not hit the QB. We can assume, but thats not what the challenge was. The call on the field was a sack/fumble. They went to review whether or not his arm was moving foward in an attempt to throw the football prior to being hit by Holloman. They determined that it was, hence and incomplete pass.

The ball came out not, because the QB threw it, but because the defender hit the QB as he was trying to throw the football. So the direction the ball goes is irrelevant in the case. I bet you won't find a single play where the defender hits the QB while he's throwing the football and because the ball goes backwards its ruled a fumble.