A different "illegal fwd pass" situation

[rbmartin]

Did anyone see the play in Chargers vs Raiders where the S.D. wide reciever
caught the ball and went down with no contact from defensive player. The reciever then stands up and spins/throws the ball to the turf (toward the goal line from where he is standing). The defensive team quickly covers the apparent "fumble".
After conferring, the officials rule at was an "illegal forward pass" and not a fumble.
While probably technically the correct call, what are the chances that the rule covering this situation will be revised in the offseason?

[Texas Aggie]

A similar thing happened in the Cowboys/Colts game a couple of weeks ago. Tight end (Cowboys) catches the ball and goes down, which appears to be untouched. He flicks the ball down and the whistles blow -- they had him touched and thus down, but what if they didn't?

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Did anyone see the play in Chargers vs Raiders where the S.D. wide reciever
caught the ball and went down with no contact from defensive player. The reciever then stands up and spins/throws the ball to the turf (toward the goal line from where he is standing). The defensive team quickly covers the apparent "fumble".
After conferring, the officials rule at was an "illegal forward pass" and not a fumble.
While probably technically the correct call, what are the chances that the rule covering this situation will be revised in the offseason?

Why should the rule be changed???? A fumble is a fumble and a pass is a pass. If anything gets changed it needs to be the "down by contact" BS. You fall, your down.

[MJT]

It was the correct call and I don't feel it should be changed.

[Trap]

It is a bad rule, because someone gains an unfair advantage from it.

Rules should not be designed for a team to gain an advantage, but the foul be called against them.

My thought is that it be a live ball, with the illegal forward pass as a penalty.



This made me think, what happens if in HS or College a run is past the line of scrimmage and has a forward lateral, the ball is dropped and the defense recovers. Then the ball go back to the offense with an IFP as a penalty?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this hurts the integrity of the game, thus is not a good application of the rule.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Trap

what happens if in HS or College a run is past the line of scrimmage and has a forward lateral, the ball is dropped and the defense recovers. Then the ball go back to the offense with an IFP as a penalty?

First of all, there is no such thing as a forward lateral.

Now to answer your question - yes. A forward pass thrown from beyond the neutral zone is an illegal forward pass. If it hits the ground it's an incomplete pass and the ball is dead. If the penalty is accepted, and I'm sure it will be, it will be marked off from the spot where the illegal pass was thrown.

I'm speaking HS rules but I think it's the same in NCAA.

Definition of a BAD RULE - something that goes against your team

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Trap

It is a bad rule, because someone gains an unfair advantage from it.

Rules should not be designed for a team to gain an advantage, but the foul be called against them.

My thought is that it be a live ball, with the illegal forward pass as a penalty.



This made me think, what happens if in HS or College a run is past the line of scrimmage and has a forward lateral, the ball is dropped and the defense recovers. Then the ball go back to the offense with an IFP as a penalty?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this hurts the integrity of the game, thus is not a good application of the rule.

What the heck is a "forward lateral?"

A pass is either forward or backward. A forward pass is either complete or incomplete. If incomplete, it's dead. If it's an illegal forward pass, it's a flag.

It's been this way forever. Why does something need to be changed that hasn't been a problem?

[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).

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Trap

It is a bad rule, because someone gains an unfair advantage from it.

Rules should not be designed for a team to gain an advantage, but the foul be called against them.

My thought is that it be a live ball, with the illegal forward pass as a penalty.

This made me think, what happens if in HS or College a run is past the line of scrimmage and has a forward lateral, the ball is dropped and the defense recovers. Then the ball go back to the offense with an IFP as a penalty?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this hurts the integrity of the game, thus is not a good application of the rule.

Unless you throw in the judgement of intent (very dangerous) as someone else mentions on this discussion, this is no different than a QB attempting to throw a forward pass beyond the neutral zone. You don't consider that ball to be live if it is incomplete.

I had a play in a playoff game this year where the quarterback turned to pitch the ball to the running back on a sweep. The running back had gone the other way so there was no one to pitch to. The quarterback's momentum spun him around a little further when the ball came out of his hands but forward. The ball hit the ground before anyone caught it so I immediately ruled incomplete forward pass. Since it was behind the neutral zone there was no illegal forward pass and there was no attempt to avoid a sack so we did not have intentional grounding. Using your logic would you have ruled this a fumble and loose ball even though that is contrary to the rules?

[Trap]

Ok, hypothetically.

You have an option offense, the qb runs around the end 10 yards past line of scrimmage, is going to get tackled, pitches the ball to the running back, who is now 1 yard ahead of him. Not expecting the ball, doesn't catch it, ball is recovered by defense.

So now you have to tell the coach that it is not a fumble, but an incomplete pass. I'm not arguing the rule, just that it defys logic and penalizes the defense. These are the types of rules, that enforced correctly, make officials look bad.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by Trap

Ok, hypothetically.

You have an option offense, the qb runs around the end 10 yards past line of scrimmage, is going to get tackled, pitches the ball to the running back, who is now 1 yard ahead of him. Not expecting the ball, doesn't catch it, ball is recovered by defense.

So now you have to tell the coach that it is not a fumble, but an incomplete pass. I'm not arguing the rule, just that it defys logic and penalizes the defense. These are the types of rules, that enforced correctly, make officials look bad.

Just for the record here, a ball that is loose from a backwards pass/pitch is not a fumble. It's simply a backwards pass. How is the defense being penalized? They can't recover a dead ball. Suppose all this took place behind the line of scrimmage. Do you think the defense should be allowed to gain possession of an incomplete pass? Everything regarding passes is consistant whether it is behind or beyond the line of scrimmage. The only thing that changes is the legality of such passes. If a forward pass (legal or illegal) hits the ground it is an incomplete pass. I don't really care what I have to tell the coach. Coaches don't like half of what we tell them anyway so we can just add this one to the list.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Why should the rule be changed???? A fumble is a fumble and a pass is a pass. If anything gets changed it needs to be the "down by contact" BS. You fall, your down.

The pros are bIG BOYS, and there has to be contact by an opponent to be down. I remember that a runner had to be STOPPED, not just down, in the NFL.

Bob