Unintentional Forward Pass Beyond LOS
 

4th & 6 @ B34.

A1 - the QB has routinely in this game scrambled and pumpfaked a pass downfield as he runs sometimes as much as 5 yards beyond the line in an effort to freeze the DBs.

On this play A1 is at the B32 when he pumpfakes and B99 tackles him from behind while the ball is moving forward and it is released, ball bounces and is recoverred by A88 at the B25 yard line. After the ball hits the ground but before it is recovered B80 spears A1.

NFHS ruling?

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Fumble. UR by Team B. 15 from end of play, AFD.

If he is hit and his arm is going forward, then it is an incomplete pass. If you judge that the arm was not in a throwing motion when hit and the ball pops out, then you have a fumble. Judgment call pretty much all the way here. But the fact that it might have been a pump fake does not change your ruling. The arm going forward in a throwing motion is all you should judge IMO.

Peace

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

Shouldn't that read "either the ball's initial direction is towards the opponent's goal line or it is not"?
We get ourselves wrapped around the axle on this "arm going forward" bit. It helps to determine whether a pass has started, but whether the pass is forward or backwards depends on something else entirely.

No, not at all. If the ball is in the hand, and the arm is going forward, this is deemed to be a forward pass. If he is hit while throwing, with his arm going forward, but the impact is such that the initial direction of the ball is backward ... this is a FORWARD pass.

NFHS 2-31:

ART. 2 . . . A forward pass is a pass thrown with its initial direction toward the
opponent’s end line.

The important part for this discussion is not that, but the "NOTE" that follows immediately afterward. However...

"NOTE: Prior to releasing the ball on a pass, if the potential passer is contacted, and the ball is released, it is a forward pass if his arm was moving forward on contact."

...notice that it says "if", not "if and only if". That seems to allow for the possibility of its being a forward pass even if the arm wasn't moving forward. Then you're thrown back on 2-31-1&2, which leave it arguable as to exactly when a pass begins in Fed rules. It says, "In a pass, the ball travels in flight." However, it's not clear whether that's just a requirement for there having been a pass or defines the entire extent of the pass. If it defines the entire extent of the pass, then the movement of the ball in the passer's hand is not part of the pass and so doesn't determine its initial direction. If, however, it just determines that a pass has occurred, then with the wording "throwing the ball" it is at least arguable that the motion of the ball in the passer's hand is its initial direction.

Robert,

This is clear to actual officials because that is how it has been called and the interpretation for years. Others like yourself might want to find nits in the information and not understand why these interpretations are the way they are, but it is clear that we do not determine (also based on what other codes do) that we judge this by the movement of the arm. It is not our job to figure out if there is a pump fake or a pass when a player is hit. That is also why you hear things like "empty hand" when someone is trying to throw and other philosophies that go along with why we have to determine the motion direction of the arm.

Peace

Robert:

Since you don't have a pass until the ball is "in flight", it follows that the initial direction of a pass is the direction it takes after leaving the passer's hand.

Is there any difference whether or not the "Passer" is behind or beyond the LOS? Behind the LOS I would not doubt calling this an incomplete pass. The action beyond the LOS is why I questioned it. IMO he didn't intend to pass, but as has been said intent is not the determining factor. I believe that the the note applies, it is a forward pass, and therefore illegal, the ball became dead when it struck the ground. It will be a first down for B, after the 15 yard penalty.

Yes, you can have a pass without a passer. If you couldn't, there would be no such thing as an incomplete illegal forward pass.