The Holy Roller - What If?

[ilyazhito]

Those of us who are football fans know about the controversial Holy Roller play, where Ken Stabler intentionally fumbled the ball forward as he was being sacked, followed by Pete Banaszak and Dave Casper batting and kicking the ball, before Casper fell on the ball in the end zone for a game-changing touchdown (Errol Mann ended up scoring the winning point on the try). This resulted in the NFL changing the rules to prevent anyone other than the fumbler advancing the ball on the fumble in the last 2 minutes of the half or on 4th down. The NCAA later adopted the 4th down fumble rule, probably also in response to this situation.

What would happen, if Jerry Markbreit, the referee on that game, or one of the line of scrimmage officials, had ruled the forward fumble as an incomplete pass instead? Would we still see the 4th down fumble rule in college and pro games?

[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!

[ilyazhito]

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.

[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?

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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?

I agree. I understand why the 4th down fumble rule exists, to prevent teams from fumbling and then benefitting by recovering a fumble in advance of where they lost the ball. The reason why NCAA created a rule for 4th down and tries is because the rules committee thought that teams would resort to bizarre plays such as forward fumbles in desperation situations where they might feel unlikely to gain needed yardage by normal means. The Holy Roller was a result of the Raiders abusing the existing rules.

I wouldn't be surprised if a high school team tries the Holy Roller in a state championship game, because recovering a fumble ahead of the spot where the ball was lost isn't illegal at that level. However, I expect that officials will be on their guard and rule any movement of the ball forwards a pass. The jet sweep play often involves a forward shovel pass, so an underhanded forward pass should not be as surprising as it was in 1978. The subsequent components of the play (Banaszak batting the ball forward and Casper kicking the ball into the end zone) would be illegal in NFHS, so for a play like the Holy Roller to work in NFHS, a team would have to drop the ball so that it rolls forwards and have someone else pick up the ball.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The jet sweep play often involves a forward shovel pass, so an underhanded forward pass should not be as surprising as it was in 1978.

Underhand forward passes were in substantial use long before then. Single wing playbooks commonly included one or more inside shovel or chest passes. And even in 1975 in the pros, the Cowboys used a couple of different such passes in their newly reinstalled shotgun system -- one flipped forward by a passer fading straight back, the other pitched forward to a trailing back by a passer faking a run around end. I don't think officials are looking for such passes any more or less these days.

In Fed rules, they do have slightly more reason to distinguish a forward pass from handing the ball forward since they limited the offense to one forward pass (but no limit on forward handoffs) per down in this century after about 60 years of not needing that distinction. But they don't have any more need than previously to distinguish it from a fumble.

And when it comes to the jet sweep, they do have a need to distinguish a forward from a backward pass in case it winds up on the ground. The reason a pass is used is that some teams want to take advantage of its becoming an incomplete pass and dead in case they drop it, which benefit they couldn't get if it were handed. But sometimes the pass is such a short distance that it's near impossible to tell whether it went forward or was just tossed straight up. If officials can't tell, are they favoring a ruling of forward pass or backward pass? On one hand, they like ruling balls dead. On the other, if the offense wants to take advantage by not handing the ball to a teammate, shouldn't they have to prove it's forward?