Is this batting by #13?

[Robert Goodman]

How could the fumble stand without subsequent batting?
#13 was trying to propel the ball, not recover it, and the result of the play certainly made propelling it forward a benefit. The penalty would look very harsh, worse than a sack, but failing to penalize it is about as good as a completed pass.

[bob jenkins]

IANAFO but doesn't n"batting" have to be intentional? This looked like a fumble, and then Red#13's arm just continued forward and hit the ball -- that action was still as part of his attempt to pass.

White should have "played to the whistle" and picked up the ball -- they had plenty of opportunity to do so.

[JRutledge]

No, this is a fumble. He clearly got the ball knocked out of his hand while trying to pass the ball. This was a great call and good job letting the play go by the officials.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No, this is a fumble. He clearly got the ball knocked out of his hand while trying to pass the ball. This was a great call and good job letting the play go by the officials.

No, I mean after he fumbled it. When his hand knocked the ball forward.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

IANAFO but doesn't n"batting" have to be intentional? This looked like a fumble, and then Red#13's arm just continued forward and hit the ball -- that action was still as part of his attempt to pass.

White should have "played to the whistle" and picked up the ball -- they had plenty of opportunity to do so.

Various players of both sides had opportunity to do so. But the batting -- he was trying to propel the ball in that direction, so isn't that intentional?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, I mean after he fumbled it. When his hand knocked the ball forward.

I am aware of what you meant, but that is not how the rule is interpreted. Again just hitting the ball with your hand is not batting. You have to purposely bat the ball. That did not happen here, he was stripped. Don't complicate this.

Peace

[HLin NC]

That's not a bat. He hit the ball as a part of his continued throwing motion.

Sometimes you just absolutely make $#!+ up for the sake of doing it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

That's not a bat. He hit the ball as a part of his continued throwing motion.

Sometimes you just absolutely make $#!+ up for the sake of doing it.

What I gather from this discussion is that, for a ruling of batting a loose ball, the player who does so has to know or perceive that the ball is loose to begin with -- that the mere intention to propel a ball in a certain direction isn't enough, unless that intention was formed after the ball became loose.

I guess this is consistent with the discussion here a while ago about a player who drops a ball to punt it, but whose follow-thru with the kicking motion results in the foot's meeting the ball after it hits the ground and bounces or rolls a bit.