1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Backyards Pass?
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:11 pm to gaetti15
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.
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:13 pm to moneyg
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:52 pm to Barbellthor
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:53 pm to moneyg
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
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 on 9/14/26 at 12:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
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.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News