Can Someone Explain How it was Not a Fumble by Geno?

MrPerfect1 · Post #1 » by **MrPerfect1** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:27 am

*I believe the explanation was that it was incomplete because his arm was going forward....

-So if Aaron Rodgers takes the snap and spins 180 degrees and throws the ball backwards it is not a fumble?

-If a team is running the Triple Option, and instead of pitching the ball, QB manages to throw/pitch it overhand to the running back slightly behind him, it would now suddenly be an incomplete pass instead of a fumble if the RB missed it?

HKPackFan · Post #2 » by **HKPackFan** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:40 am

MrPerfect1 wrote:*I believe the explanation was that it was incomplete because his arm was going forward....

-So if Aaron Rodgers takes the snap and spins 180 degrees and throws the ball backwards it is not a fumble?

-If a team is running the Triple Option, and instead of pitching the ball, QB manages to throw/pitch it overhand to the running back slightly behind him, it would now suddenly be an incomplete pass instead of a fumble if the RB missed it?

I'm not sure it was clear the pass went backwards. It seemed parallel at most...Didn't seem like it went "FORWARD" but apparently the review showed enough arm going forward and enough ball moving forward to not call it a fumble nor a backward pass/lateral.

The Tuck rule makes no sense to me either....but this is a QB/Offense friendly league...

Post #3 » by **paulpressey25** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:41 pm

When they went to Mike Carey in New York on that play, he was all over the map and none of it made sense.

Does the rule imply the "arm" has to be going further or just a "forward motion" because his arm wasn't moving, that ball was released by his wrist.

Additionally, I got the impression after Carey's final opinion (after going back and forth) that it almost didn't matter whether the ball was going forward, backward or neutral, as long as it was a "forward passing motion" on the part of the quarterback (even if "forward" was backward) that it wouldn't have been a fumble.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #4 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:47 pm

I think it was that basically if the player was throwing forward but the hit caused it to go backwards, it's incomplete. The arm started going forward and just changed as he was hit. I guess that kind of makes sense once you start the throwing motion forward, it's not a fumble.

Post #5 » by **MickeyDavis** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:15 pm

I thought Mike Carey was a very good ref but his first 2 weeks as a TV ref on CBS have been shaky at best. He was all over the place on this one.

emunney · Post #6 » by **emunney** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:36 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:
Additionally, I got the impression after Carey's final opinion (after going back and forth) that it almost didn't matter whether the ball was going forward, backward or neutral, as long as it was a "forward passing motion" on the part of the quarterback (even if "forward" was backward) that it wouldn't have been a fumble.

I always thought it was the reverse of that: if the ball is going laterally or backward, the arm motion doesn't matter. The direction of the 'pass' comes first. Rulebook says differently.

https://amp.twimg.com/v/9c10ac38-b830-4 ... 88dc43753d

I wonder how many times this has been called wrong. I bet a lot.

Ron Swanson · Post #7 » by **Ron Swanson** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:27 pm

It was, by every definition and eye test, a "backwards pass" (the ball is released and it ends up diagonally behind the hash mark were it started).

I don't understand how they could justify the "arm motion" part of it, because it was irrelevant. The ball simply traveled diagonally backwards and should have been considered a "pitch" and ruled a fumble.

Then again, whether it be the rules on the field or off it, the NFL doesn't seem to have a clue as to how to enforce anything correctly right now....

chuckleslove · Post #8 » by **chuckleslove** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:58 pm

Ron Swanson wrote:It was, by every definition and eye test, a "backwards pass" (the ball is released and it ends up diagonally behind the hash mark were it started).

I don't understand how they could justify the "arm motion" part of it, because it was irrelevant. The ball simply traveled diagonally backwards and should have been considered a "pitch" and ruled a fumble.

Then again, whether it be the rules on the field or off it, the NFL doesn't seem to have a clue as to how to enforce anything correctly right now....

But it ended up backwards because of how the defender impacted it. If a defender at the line of scrimmage bats a ball backwards and it ends up behind the QB you don't call it a fumble this is a similar concept. This is an extension of the tuck rule type thing whether you agree with it or not is a different story, I think it should be a fumble but that isn't the rule.