Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
Watching the game live on TV at the time, I was sure it was only Raider magic in the NFL office that kept the first pass from being ruled incomplete (which just required ruling it a pass instead of a fumble), and at least one of the subsequent ones from being called illegal batting or illegal forward pass.
However, favoritism for certain clubs aside, over the years the game has tried to take more and more judgment away from field officials in favor of clearer calls that are easier to decide on the facts albeit less in tune with the overall spirit of the game, like the later-adopted fumble recovery. I would far prefer a rugby-like rule that simply didn't allow ground gained, any time, any place on the field, by recovering a fumble or muff ahead of the spot where contact with the ball was lost, with certain exceptions. Canadian football called that sort of thing an "offside pass" but poked more and more exceptions in it over many years to where it's now practically the same as American fumble recovery rules.
I also don't like the way "fumble" is defined by exclusion, but it's better than nothing. Even by that rule, Stabler threw the ball, making it a pass, not a fumble. Quarterbacks have lost a ball in their hand in far more ambiguous circumstances and had a forward pass ruled as a result. Then the question was whether the subsequent hits propelling the ball forward were muffs or bats, and although some of the contacts were at least arguably muff, enough of it was batting to be called such if the Raider club was not charmed. In fact Banaszak had such control of the ball, he was scooping it forward, not even batting it!
|
In that case, the Holy Roller definitely should not have counted. There were 2 forward passes on the play, the legal one by Stabler, which should have been ruled incomplete, and the illegal one by Banaszak, which should also be an incompletion, plus a loss of down penalty. Assuming this play happened on 4th down, the Chargers should get possession 5 yards from the spot of the foul (assuming the forward "fumble" by Stabler was not blown dead as an incomplete pass).
Assuming that the play was officiated correctly and the Raiders touchdown on the Holy Roller does not count, would there still be an impetus for the 4th down fumble rule? I would argue that there wouldn't be, because there would be a precedent that a ball released forward is an incomplete pass, not a fumble. Seeing the Raiders called for an incomplete pass on the attempt at the Holy Roller would discourage other teams from attempting similar plays. In addition, the ruling in the Tuck Rule game would not be controversial at all, because there was prior precedent establishing that a quarterback propelling the ball forward is a pass.