Started By
Message

re: Backwards Pass?

Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:09 pm to
Posted by gaetti15
AK
Member since Apr 2013
15807 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:09 pm to
quote:

after intentional forward movement of his hand


that's why I'm asking for the definition of forward

it's not forward unless the game considers movements toward the sidelines as forward...up is definitely not forward
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
484469 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:11 pm to
That's why you have to separate it into "pass" and "fumble" categories


I think it was a fumble

However, the call was a pass, and if it's a pass, then that rule applies and it doesn't matter if it goes backwards.

So they made one mistake, but not 2, basically.
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
64201 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:11 pm to
quote:

Yeah I think it was a fumble.



So, you think if the ball had in fact gone forward, it should have been ruled a fumble?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
484469 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:13 pm to
quote:

So, you think if the ball had in fact gone forward, it should have been ruled a fumble?


No. I don't think it went forward to be a pass and was a fumble.

If it went forward, it would be a pass, and that rule applies. That's how the refs called it
Posted by gaetti15
AK
Member since Apr 2013
15807 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:16 pm to
quote:

I think it was a fumble

However, the call was a pass, and if it's a pass, then that rule applies and it doesn't matter if it goes backwards.

So they made one mistake, but not 2, basically.


that's why it gets confusing...the refs got it right in real time, but the New York office got it wrong after review.

Posted by Barbellthor
Columbia
Member since Aug 2015
11877 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:22 pm to
quote:

contact by an opponent materially affects the passer, causing the ball to go backward, it is a forward pass

That is definitely a scenario where the defender directly strips the ball out of the passer's forward-moving hand.

This rule has never been used to reach this result. frick the NFL, and you're a cuck for doing their dirty work, you little Benedict Arnold.
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
64201 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:42 pm to
quote:

No. I don't think it went forward to be a pass and was a fumble.



This makes no sense.

quote:

If it went forward, it would be a pass


It sounds a lot like you are saying it should be called a fumble, even though it doesn't meet the definition of a fumble.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
484469 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:52 pm to
quote:

That is definitely a scenario where the defender directly strips the ball out of the passer's forward-moving hand.

No. It applies to any hit while throwing.

quote:

This rule has never been used to reach this result.


Week 2 remainders: fumbles become incomplete passes

quote:

Published 12 years ago on September 21, 2014



quote:

In Geno Smith’s case, the only reason the ball went backward was due to the defensive contact. Alex Smith was moving his arm slightly, but in an obvious forward passing motion when viewed on replay. Because the actions of the quarterbacks made the ball a forward pass, both plays were ruled incomplete passes in replay. With the repeal of the Tuck Rule in 2013, the end of a forward motion ends the intention to pass, and not tucking the ball into the body. The next issue for these plays involves intentional grounding, as it was argued that these passes were nowhere near an intended receiver. However, the rules allow the word intentional to have meaning — the actions of both Smiths were intended to be passes to an eligible receiver, and the intentional grounding rules give similar deference to the quarterback as Rule 8-1-1a does to make it incomplete. In this case, if there is no eligible target in the path of the intended pass, the referee can still call intentional grounding. Such a call is rarely made, though, because it is difficult to actually determine what would have happened without the defensive contact.


Even the "intent" stuff is discussed. 12 years ago. This isn't new.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
484469 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:53 pm to
quote:

This makes no sense.

You didn't see it as a fumble?

quote:

It sounds a lot like you are saying it should be called a fumble,

I believe it should have been a fumble

But they ruled it wasn't, and I disagree. They ruled it a pass.

Within the scenario of it being a pass, the fact that the ball went backwards is irrelevant as the contact can't turn a pass into a lateral or backwards pass.
Posted by gaetti15
AK
Member since Apr 2013
15807 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:55 pm to
quote:

But they ruled it wasn't, and I disagree. They ruled it a pass.



The new york office, not the actual referees at the game. Just to clarify
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
64201 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:56 pm to
quote:

You didn't see it as a fumble?



It wasn't a fumble. It was a lateral.

quote:

I believe it should have been a fumble

But they ruled it wasn't, and I disagree. They ruled it a pass.

Within the scenario of it being a pass, the fact that the ball went backwards is irrelevant as the contact can't turn a pass into a lateral or backwards pass.



You are trying to manipulate the rules. It appears to me the rules were correctly applied. It's just a dumb rule that is counter to the way we've seen that play called in the past and the exception doesn't protect anything important from an offensive standpoint while simultaneously removing a benefit of a great play from the defense.

But, it's not a fumble. And, the fact that you think it wouldn't be a fumble if the ball went forward proves it's not a fumble.
Posted by Barbellthor
Columbia
Member since Aug 2015
11877 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 1:15 pm to
Nope. It's wrong. We reject it. It doesn't exist, is absurd, against the spirit of the rules. frick the NFL and anyone who would support this gaslighting horse shite.

Also still no intent.

PS: to the extent you're just relaying information, that's fine. Not shooting the messenger, no anger at you. We are, however, metaphorically shooting Goodell with moral indignation arrows in his stupid gay face.
This post was edited on 9/14/26 at 1:58 pm
Posted by gaetti15
AK
Member since Apr 2013
15807 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

It wasn't a fumble. It was a lateral.



the refs on the field ruled it a fumble

which was then overturned by the league office.

This post was edited on 9/14/26 at 1:21 pm
Posted by Neauxla
New Orleans
Member since Feb 2008
34883 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 1:38 pm to
quote:


It wasn't a fumble. It was a lateral.
explain your basis for this belief
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
64201 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 1:49 pm to
quote:

explain your basis for this belief


The ball wasn’t dislodged. It was “thrown”.

A lateral is a live ball like a fumble.

The exception in the rulebook is nonsensical.

But it wasn’t a fumble.
Posted by Neauxla
New Orleans
Member since Feb 2008
34883 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 1:58 pm to
quote:

The ball wasn’t dislodged. It was “thrown”.
Agree to disagree. His arm/hand was moving upwards, and had not yet reached the height when he would begin to move it forward when Chase Young's arm came crashing down on his arm which caused Goff's arm to whiplash forward with the ball coming out w/o control by Goff.
Posted by Midget Death Squad
Meme Magic
Member since Oct 2008
28669 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 2:01 pm to
quote:

contact by an opponent materially affects the passer, causing the ball to go backward


Meaning if the QB is throwing it forward but the momentum of the hit causes the ball to fly backwards. We see this often.

That is NOT the case here. Goff was facing the sideline with the trajectory of his throw facing backwards. At no point was his arm ever moving the ball past the LOS.

Now shut up and get back to your game of jacks.
Posted by gaetti15
AK
Member since Apr 2013
15807 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 2:05 pm to
quote:

His arm/hand was moving upwards, and had not yet reached the height when he would begin to move it forward when Chase Young's arm came crashing down on his arm which caused Goff's arm to whiplash forward with the ball coming out w/o control by Goff.


100%
Posted by goatmilker
Castle Anthrax
Member since Feb 2009
77816 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 2:09 pm to
In the grasp
A sack
A lateral
A fumble
No none of that.
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
64201 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 2:16 pm to
quote:

His arm/hand was moving upwards, and had not yet reached the height when he would begin to move it forward when Chase Young's arm came crashing down on his arm


100% accurate

quote:

caused Goff's arm to whiplash forward with the ball coming out w/o control by Goff.


I think it’s clear that Goffs arm moved on its own, the ball came out like a pass, and didn’t leave his hand until he released the ball.

first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

Facebook•X•Instagram