[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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.

Undoubtedly. The NFL had a choice of saying their officials goofed, see who your bookie wants to credit with the win; or acknowledging that was a legal play and in subsequent years altering the rules to make that sort of play specifically illegal. Why should it be different on 4th down from any other? Why should it be different in the last 2 minutes? Why only at the goal line? They just don't want to say they were intimidated by Al Davis. And then after the passage of time NCAA said, huh, why not adopt the same kind of rule just in case?