A different "illegal fwd pass" situation

[gsf23]

Personally I think this is a situation where the officials should be allowed to exercise their judgment.

This whole play goes back to the famous Raider play where Dave Casper was going to be brought down short of the end zone at the end of a game. He intentionally fumbled the ball forward towards the end zone and the Raiders eventually recovered in the end zone for a TD and the win. The rule was then made that an intentional fumble forward shall be ruled an incomplete pass.

In the SD-OAK game, it was very obvious that the receiver was not trying to gain an advantage, pick up extra yards or keep the play alive. He thought he was down and dropped the ball. The officials should be able to use their judgment and rule a fumble on that play. They let officials use their judgment in other areas and this is another where they should be allowed.

[TXMike]

The way it has been described, the ball was not "dropped" it was thrown down. That is a pass.

[Trap]

I don't think a penalty should ever be to the benefit of the team committing it. Thats why its called a "penalty".

[TXMike]

There are many times when a penalty still results in some benefit for the fouling team. The foulers here are losing 5 yards and a down (assuming the result of play after the penalty is not a 1st down).

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by gsf23

...The rule was then made that an intentional fumble forward shall be ruled an incomplete pass.

REPLY: Actually, I'm not sure that was the rule change. I believe that an intentional fumble forward was always ruled an incomplete pass. The problem was in those days before replay, no one could see that it was "intentional." I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the rule change was that any forward fumble (4th down?) is returned to the spot of the fumble, similar to the current NCAA rule. The rule in the NFL is called the "Markbreit" rule since the play occurred on his watch--and it was his first nationally televised game as a referee.