Unintentional Forward Pass Beyond LOS

[CT1]

It's quite likely that this is a fumble, and only B's foul will be penalized. If you judge that A1 threw a pass, it's a double foul -- replay the down from the previous spot.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CT1

It's quite likely that this is a fumble, and only B's foul will be penalized. If you judge that A1 threw a pass, it's a double foul -- replay the down from the previous spot.

I disagree with the last part, though a double foul would be a LOT easier!

Enforcement of the IHC will depend crucially on the call here.

If we rule fumble, then B's foul occurs during the down. The basic spot is the end of the run, repeat the down (though the penalty results in a 1st down in this case). A's options: decline the penalty (A 1/10 @ B25, clock on the ready) or accept the penalty (A 1/10 @ B17, clock on the ready).

If it's an IFP, B's IHC foul occurred after the ball became dead on the incomplete pass. So you'd have a live ball foul by A and a dead ball foul by B, and this is never a double foul (Fundamental IX.2). Enforce both.

And that's tricky too: the LTG is the B28, and after enforcement for the IFP the ball will be spotted at the B37. With loss of down, B will get the ball. Then enforce B's foul back to the B22, then set the chains. B's ball, 1/10 @ B22, clock starts on the snap.

[CT1]

You're right, mbyron, and thanks for the correction. Gotta get waked up before reading this board!

[MD Longhorn]

I believe both rule and clinic have been VERY clear on this... regardless of the hit from behind --- if the quarterback attempts a pump fake and the ball comes out, it's an incomplete pass. The only way this is a fumble is if the arm was not in a throwing motion - and it sounds like it definitely was.

Besides, you don't KNOW that this time was going to be a pump fake - this could have been the play they were setting up with the previous pump fakes - so the defense wouldn't bite on the short pass.

Let me ask this --- had this happened on the first play of the game, and you hadn't seen any pump fakes yet, would there have been ANY question in your mind that this was an incomplete pass?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I believe both rule and clinic have been VERY clear on this... regardless of the hit from behind --- if the quarterback attempts a pump fake and the ball comes out, it's an incomplete pass. The only way this is a fumble is if the arm was not in a throwing motion - and it sounds like it definitely was.

Besides, you don't KNOW that this time was going to be a pump fake - this could have been the play they were setting up with the previous pump fakes - so the defense wouldn't bite on the short pass.

Let me ask this --- had this happened on the first play of the game, and you hadn't seen any pump fakes yet, would there have been ANY question in your mind that this was an incomplete pass?

Mike, I agree that, as described in the OP (arm and ball moving forward when the ball comes out), this should probably be ruled a pass. As covering official, I don't care about the passer's intent: if the arm is moving forward when the ball comes out, it's a pass.

However, I can also envision plays less completely described plays where the tackler catches up to a rolling passer and the ball comes out. In the generic play R has an important judgment call to make. Some posters were simply pointing out that we have to make this call before we address the penalties.

[Robert Goodman]

What if it's not clear whether the passer was trying to make a forward or a backward pass, but when he's hit as he throws the ball winds up going slightly forward to the receiver? What if it looks more likely that he was trying to make a backward pass than a forward one?

[HLin NC]

"Do or do not, there is no try."- Yoda

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What if it's not clear whether the passer was trying to make a forward or a backward pass, but when he's hit as he throws the ball winds up going slightly forward to the receiver? What if it looks more likely that he was trying to make a backward pass than a forward one?

That's why they pay us. To judge on the unclear and make it clear.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What if it's not clear whether the passer was trying to make a forward or a backward pass, but when he's hit as he throws the ball winds up going slightly forward to the receiver? What if it looks more likely that he was trying to make a backward pass than a forward one?

Easy. If he's beyond the NZ and it's close, the pass was backward. When in doubt it's legal, and favors the offense. In this case, though, making it legal will leave the ball live on the ground.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What if it's not clear whether the passer was trying to make a forward or a backward pass, but when he's hit as he throws the ball winds up going slightly forward to the receiver? What if it looks more likely that he was trying to make a backward pass than a forward one?

It is not our job to make decisions about what is clear. The situation is simple, either the arm is going forward or it is not. And just because we do not know if they were trying to pass does not subjugate our responsibility to make the an appropriate crew. It is not about what he is trying to do, it is about what happened in our judgment of course.

Peace