Vincent Jackson's "Illegal Forward Pass" (1 Viewer)

[ghosttothepost]

Didn't see another thread on this so I figured why not start one. How in the world is a player who essentially intentionally drops the ball while in play and downfield considered to be throwing a "forward pass?" 1. It is beyond dispute that Jackson had no intent of throwing a "foward pass" of any sort. 2. His arm was actually moving backward (i.e. towards the line of scrimmage) when the ball squirted out. 3. It was the Raiders who would have benefitted from any reasonable interpretation of the situation (i.e. that it was a fumble). Seems like if you consider all three factors this was definitely another case of the Raiders (albeit a HORRID football team) getting jobbed by the refs! What say you?

 

[UCLAGIE]

Odd, but correct, call brings confusion in S.D. game

ESPN.com news services

SAN DIEGO -- A moment of celebration by San Diego receiver Vincent Jackson turned into 10 minutes of confusion in the fourth quarter of the Chargers game with the rival Oakland Raiders.

With the Chargers trailing 14-7 and facing fourth-and-2 from the Raiders 40, Jackson caught a 13-yard pass from Philip Rivers, rolled to the ground untouched, then stood up and spun the ball forward. Oakland's Fabian Washington jumped on the ball, believing it was a fumble, and setting off 10 minutes of confusion as the referees sorted it out.

Referee Mike Carey originally signaled Oakland's possession, but then the Chargers were flagged for illegal forward pass. Even with the 5-yard penalty for the illegal pass, the Chargers still had a first down, at the 32.

Four plays later, LaDainian Tomlinson threw a 19-yard touchdown pass to Antonio Gates to tie the game at 14.

While the call was questioned on the field, NFL Supervisor of Officials Mike Pereira confirmed to ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the call was correct -- and not without precedent.

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson spinning the ball forward when he was not down by contact constituted an intentional illegal forward fumble and thus an illegal forward pass. Had he spun it backward, it would have been a live fumble.

A similar call was made when Plaxico Burress did the same thing with the Steelers on Oct. 1, 2000.

 

[GregR_2]

Nope. It was the correct call. You can't intentionally throw or fumble the ball forward. Being an idiot while you're doing it doesn't change anything.

It's also consistent with how it's been called in the past, like when Burress did it.

 

[ghosttothepost]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling. Obviously, the rule the officials are relying on is the one that ironically came out of Raiders/Chargers fumbleruski (sp?) game where the players involved did in fact INTENTIONALLY fumble the ball forward. This was nothing of the sort.

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't think the refs jobbed the Raiders. They got jobbed by a strict interpretation of the rules. Again. All of the motions used to describe a forward pass fit what Jackson did. Intent doesn't come into play. Clearly it should have been a fumble by an undisciplined player. But because what he stupidly did fit into a literal definition ironically designed to prevent advancing the ball as a fumble it gets called back. The refs correctly called the rule however in this particualr instance it went against what "should' have happened. These loopholes occur every year and it seems that the Raiders get more than their share. Wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[MSULions]

Nope. It was the correct call. You can't intentionally throw or fumble the ball forward. Being an idiot while you're doing it doesn't change anything.



It's also consistent with how it's been called in the past, like when Burress did it.

I knew i remembered it happening before.....Raider's fans can suck it up and quit whining now. Their radio guys were inconsolable and talked about it non-stop in between every play for the last 10 minutes of the game...

 

[redman]

The tuck rule is a good analogy. It was the proper or "correct" call, but I don't like the rule.

 

[Keys Myaths]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

 

[Billy1x]

He tossed/threw the ball, which means its not a fumble.

It went forward (makes it a forward pass)

If it went backwards it would be a lateral and a live ball

 

[bentley]

It's "another tuck job" in the sense that they were both correct calls.

 

[mad sweeney]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

But he didn't intend it to be a fumble. He intentionally let go of the ball and it travelled forward. That makes it fit the definition of forward pass.

 

[Keys Myaths]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

But he didn't intend it to be a fumble. He intentionally let go of the ball and it travelled forward. That makes it fit the definition of forward pass.

So we agree.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Correct Call

Announcer was a #######

 

[ghosttothepost]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

 

[02025]

not fumbleruski...you're thinking of holy roller Sd/Oak game...

 

[Mungo Burrows]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

That just makes him stupid. He intentionally launched a live ball forward. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

He wasn't "fumbling" the ball. He was passing it. He let it go on purpose by flicking the ball. That makes it a pass. (If the ball had just come out of his hands by itself accidentally, that would have been a fumble.)

 

[FFdork]

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

I can tell from your avatar that you're completely unbiased on the topic . The first post in this thread showed you were technically wrong. You can still argue it's a dumb rule like (much like Raiders fans will until the end of time with the tuck rule). I'm not a Raider or Chargers fan, but in this case I happen to think the way the rule was enforced made sense. While he wasn't trying to throw a pass, it was a purposeful forward throw of the ball (i.e. a pass). I suppose you could call it an intentional forward fumble, but wouldn't that be illegal too due to the Holy Roller rule?

 

[ghosttothepost]

not fumbleruski...you're thinking of holy roller Sd/Oak game...

you're right. my bad but i still believe the Raiders got

 

[LongDrivethenFoozle]

The "let it go" is what any Raider fan should do as long as they follow a team as poorly managed as that once proud franchise has been. It is a "cloud" that will continue to follow that team for as long as they treat the NFL as if it were a "semi-pro" league. The team is and always will be the joke of the NFL until a new ownership applies both a different approach towards personnel and perception as a franchise. I would be embarrassed to be a fan of such a ridiculous approach to being an NFL team. To see the fans still wearing Halloween costumes as if to intimidate.......the players still thinking "Silver and Black" is toughness without being the same "tough" players who once wore those uniforms. It has become a "feel sorry for" franchise to what was once a great team. What worked for Mr. Davis in the 70's and 80's were great players, and not because they were misfits.....they just tended to be a bit different. Now it has become a ZOO of individuals with no leadership to turn to.....and to think that the owner still believes that cliches like "commitment to excellence" and "just win baby" work????? It's just a sad franchise with "sad" fans! And those fans really stand out as fans of very little knowledge....and poor taste in color!

 

[jonessed]

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

I can tell from your avatar that you're completely unbiased on the topic . The first post in this thread showed you were technically wrong. You can still argue it's a dumb rule like (much like Raiders fans will until the end of time with the tuck rule). I'm not a Raider or Chargers fan, but in this case I happen to think the way the rule was enforced made sense. While he wasn't trying to throw a pass, it was a purposeful forward throw of the ball (i.e. a pass). I suppose you could call it an intentional forward fumble, but wouldn't that be illegal too due to the Holy Roller rule?

Yes, ironically created because of a Raiders exploit used against the Chargers. Karma.

 

[ghosttothepost]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

He wasn't "fumbling" the ball. He was passing it. He let it go on purpose by flicking the ball. That makes it a pass. (If the ball had just come out of his hands by itself accidentally, that would have been a fumble.)

I actually think you're making my point. As I understand it, the refs did not rule he was making a forward pass. Per the above ESPN article they ruled "it is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass." So by your own logic, they got it wrong -- there was no "intentional fumble."

 

[jonessed]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

He wasn't "fumbling" the ball. He was passing it. He let it go on purpose by flicking the ball. That makes it a pass. (If the ball had just come out of his hands by itself accidentally, that would have been a fumble.)

I actually think you're making my point. As I understand it, the refs did not rule he was making a forward pass. Per the above ESPN article they ruled "it is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass." So by your own logic, they got it wrong -- there was no "intentional fumble."

It couldn't have been more intentional.

The NFL has reviewed it. It was the right call. Let it go

 

[ghosttothepost]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

He wasn't "fumbling" the ball. He was passing it. He let it go on purpose by flicking the ball. That makes it a pass. (If the ball had just come out of his hands by itself accidentally, that would have been a fumble.)

I actually think you're making my point. As I understand it, the refs did not rule he was making a forward pass. Per the above ESPN article they ruled "it is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass." So by your own logic, they got it wrong -- there was no "intentional fumble."

It couldn't have been more intentional.

The NFL has reviewed it. It was the right call. Let it go

1. You totally missed my point.2. If people just "let it go" on these boards, what fun would that be? I mean how would we end up with 100's of threads and 1000's of pages on things like the GDRBD (The Great Denver Running Back Debate)????

3. See 1 and 2.

 

[massraider]

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

I can tell from your avatar that you're completely unbiased on the topic . The first post in this thread showed you were technically wrong. You can still argue it's a dumb rule like (much like Raiders fans will until the end of time with the tuck rule). I'm not a Raider or Chargers fan, but in this case I happen to think the way the rule was enforced made sense. While he wasn't trying to throw a pass, it was a purposeful forward throw of the ball (i.e. a pass). I suppose you could call it an intentional forward fumble, but wouldn't that be illegal too due to the Holy Roller rule?

Yeah, it would. But the Raiders would have maintained posession, because in that instance, only the offensive player that fumbled it can advance it. By calling it a pass, the Raiders can't have it because it touched the ball.I think they called the rule correctly. Having said that, I have two problems:

The official has essentially determined intent, by calling that a pass, and allowing them to use that rule. Yeah, the rule was called correctly, but it never should have gotten to that point. Enforcing of the rule isn't a problem, calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Put another way:

If it was ruled a fumble, and Raider ball, and Charger announcers were saying, "Hey, no, that was a pass!", what kind of reaction should there be?

If Mike Perreria is proud of his crew for calling that correctly, good for them. Keep them out of trouble. But let's hope that rule gets changed, it makes even less sense than the tuck rule.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As I understand it, the refs did not rule he was making a forward pass.

That's exactly what they ruled. He made a forward pass. An illegal one. But an incomplete pass is not a fumble.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

. . . calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Of course. Exactly. That shouldn't be controversial. To intentionally flick the ball is to pass it. That's not a close call.

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Why would a running back intentionally flick the ball forwards? Edit to add: If he actually does intentionally flick the ball, then yes, that would be a pass.

 

[ghosttothepost]

As I understand it, the refs did not rule he was making a forward pass.

That's exactly what they ruled. He made a forward pass. An illegal one. But an incomplete pass is not a fumble.

How do you square that conclusion with the ESPN report?

While the call was questioned on the field, NFL Supervisor of Officials Mike Pereira confirmed to ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the call was correct -- and not without precedent.

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Sure appears like the NFL is saying it was an "intentional foward fumble" which by rule is an incomplete pass. Isn't that different from directly ruling he was making a forward pass?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As I understand it, the refs did not rule he was making a forward pass.

That's exactly what they ruled. He made a forward pass. An illegal one. But an incomplete pass is not a fumble.

How do you square that conclusion with the ESPN report?

While the call was questioned on the field, NFL Supervisor of Officials Mike Pereira confirmed to ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the call was correct -- and not without precedent.

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Sure appears like the NFL is saying it was an "intentional foward fumble" which by rule is an incomplete pass. Isn't that different from directly ruling he was making a forward pass?

What's to square? They're saying the same thing as I'm saying. We're saying that he intentionally pushed the ball forward, and that constitutes a forward pass.

 

[Erin Go Bragh]

When Plaxico did it, he spiked the ball and it went backwards. It was recovered by the Jaguars (Donovan Darius, if I recall correctly).

 

[bryhamm]

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

I can tell from your avatar that you're completely unbiased on the topic . The first post in this thread showed you were technically wrong. You can still argue it's a dumb rule like (much like Raiders fans will until the end of time with the tuck rule). I'm not a Raider or Chargers fan, but in this case I happen to think the way the rule was enforced made sense. While he wasn't trying to throw a pass, it was a purposeful forward throw of the ball (i.e. a pass). I suppose you could call it an intentional forward fumble, but wouldn't that be illegal too due to the Holy Roller rule?

Yeah, it would. But the Raiders would have maintained posession, because in that instance, only the offensive player that fumbled it can advance it. By calling it a pass, the Raiders can't have it because it touched the ball.I think they called the rule correctly. Having said that, I have two problems:

The official has essentially determined intent, by calling that a pass, and allowing them to use that rule. Yeah, the rule was called correctly, but it never should have gotten to that point. Enforcing of the rule isn't a problem, calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Put another way:

If it was ruled a fumble, and Raider ball, and Charger announcers were saying, "Hey, no, that was a pass!", what kind of reaction should there be?

If Mike Perreria is proud of his crew for calling that correctly, good for them. Keep them out of trouble. But let's hope that rule gets changed, it makes even less sense than the tuck rule.

For it to be considered a "pass" the arm has to be moving and the ball has to travel forward, both of which happened in this case. I don't think a "true" fumble would be defensible as "no, that was a pass" because rarely is the ball carrier's arm moving in a throwing motion.

 

[massraider]

The "letting go" wasn't what was accidental, the fact that he was "fumbling" was accidental. In other words, unlike all the players involved in the "fumbleruski" play, Jackson had no idea, let alone intent, that he was "fumbling" the ball.

I can tell from your avatar that you're completely unbiased on the topic . The first post in this thread showed you were technically wrong. You can still argue it's a dumb rule like (much like Raiders fans will until the end of time with the tuck rule). I'm not a Raider or Chargers fan, but in this case I happen to think the way the rule was enforced made sense. While he wasn't trying to throw a pass, it was a purposeful forward throw of the ball (i.e. a pass). I suppose you could call it an intentional forward fumble, but wouldn't that be illegal too due to the Holy Roller rule?

Yeah, it would. But the Raiders would have maintained posession, because in that instance, only the offensive player that fumbled it can advance it. By calling it a pass, the Raiders can't have it because it touched the ball.I think they called the rule correctly. Having said that, I have two problems:

The official has essentially determined intent, by calling that a pass, and allowing them to use that rule. Yeah, the rule was called correctly, but it never should have gotten to that point. Enforcing of the rule isn't a problem, calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Put another way:

If it was ruled a fumble, and Raider ball, and Charger announcers were saying, "Hey, no, that was a pass!", what kind of reaction should there be?

If Mike Perreria is proud of his crew for calling that correctly, good for them. Keep them out of trouble. But let's hope that rule gets changed, it makes even less sense than the tuck rule.

For it to be considered a "pass" the arm has to be moving and the ball has to travel forward, both of which happened in this case. I don't think a "true" fumble would be defensible as "no, that was a pass" because rarely is the ball carrier's arm moving in a throwing motion.

The ball carriers arm is moving forward half the time he's running.

 

[[scooter]]

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

Doesn't matter. "Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time."

 

[massraider]

. . . calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Of course. Exactly. That shouldn't be controversial. To intentionally flick the ball is to pass it. That's not a close call.

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Why would a running back intentionally flick the ball forwards? Edit to add: If he actually does intentionally flick the ball, then yes, that would be a pass.

Why would Vincent Jackson intentionally flip it forward there?

 

[massraider]

' date='Nov 26 2006, 09:53 PM' post='5965928']

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

Doesn't matter. "Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time."

Also doesn't matter. Because any intentional forward fumble is a pass, and a pass.But was Vincent Jackson intentionally fumbling it forward? No, no he wasn't. but it went forward, so they invoked the rule.

 

[[scooter]]

' date='Nov 26 2006, 09:53 PM' post='5965928']

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

Doesn't matter. "Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time."

Also doesn't matter. Because any intentional forward fumble is a pass, and a pass.But was Vincent Jackson intentionally fumbling it forward? No, no he wasn't. but it went forward, so they invoked the rule.

And therein lies the grey area. That rule requires the referee to determine if the player's intent was to fumble and/or advance the ball. Forward fumbles happen all the time, but they are only ruled as "incomplete passes" when the ref decides that the player was being deceptive.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

. . . calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Of course. Exactly. That shouldn't be controversial. To intentionally flick the ball is to pass it. That's not a close call.

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Why would a running back intentionally flick the ball forwards? Edit to add: If he actually does intentionally flick the ball, then yes, that would be a pass.

Why would Vincent Jackson intentionally flip it forward there?

Because he thought the play was over. Ask some harder questions please.

 

[massraider]

. . . calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Of course. Exactly. That shouldn't be controversial. To intentionally flick the ball is to pass it. That's not a close call.

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Why would a running back intentionally flick the ball forwards? Edit to add: If he actually does intentionally flick the ball, then yes, that would be a pass.

Why would Vincent Jackson intentionally flip it forward there?

Because he thought the play was over. Ask some harder questions please.

You see the problem though, right?If the ref can determine the player intended to do it, why can't he determine whether it was a pass or a fumble?

 

[massraider]

' date='Nov 26 2006, 10:06 PM' post='5965988']

' date='Nov 26 2006, 09:53 PM' post='5965928']

It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.

Jackson wasn't "intentionally fumbling" anything. At best he was ACCIDENTALLY fumbling.

You need to learn the difference between intentional and accidental.He let go of that ball on purpose, son.

Doesn't matter. "Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time."

Also doesn't matter. Because any intentional forward fumble is a pass, and a pass.But was Vincent Jackson intentionally fumbling it forward? No, no he wasn't. but it went forward, so they invoked the rule.

And therein lies the grey area. That rule requires the referee to determine if the player's intent was to advance the ball. Forward fumbles happen all the time, but they are only ruled as "incomplete passes" when the ref decides that the player was being deceptive.

Exactly. Which is crap.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But was Vincent Jackson intentionally fumbling it forward?

Why do people (including ESPN) keep using the word fumble? He intentionally pushed/released the ball, and it went forward.Here is the definition of a pass:

A Pass is the movement of the ball caused by handing, throwing, shoving (shovel pass), or pushing (push pass) by a runner (3-27-1). Such a movement is a pass, even though the ball does not leave his hand or hands, provided a teammate takes it (hand to hand pass).

Here is the definition of a forward pass:

A Forward Pass (8-1-1) is a pass that:(a) initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent's goal line) after leaving the passer's hands and before touching another player; or(b) is handed (regardless of the direction of movement of the ball) to a player who is in advance of a teammate from whose hands he takes or receive it.

What is the argument that Jackson didn't do a forward pass? I'm stumped as to why this is controversial at all.

 

[jonessed]

. . . calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Of course. Exactly. That shouldn't be controversial. To intentionally flick the ball is to pass it. That's not a close call.

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Why would a running back intentionally flick the ball forwards? Edit to add: If he actually does intentionally flick the ball, then yes, that would be a pass.

Why would Vincent Jackson intentionally flip it forward there?

Because he thought the play was over. Ask some harder questions please.

You see the problem though, right?If the ref can determine the player intended to do it, why can't he determine whether it was a pass or a fumble?

Not really. If a QB pump-fakes and the ball slips forward it's an incomplete pass regardless of whether or not the QB intended to throw it. It can never be interpreted as a fumble.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

. . . calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Of course. Exactly. That shouldn't be controversial. To intentionally flick the ball is to pass it. That's not a close call.

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Why would a running back intentionally flick the ball forwards? Edit to add: If he actually does intentionally flick the ball, then yes, that would be a pass.

Why would Vincent Jackson intentionally flip it forward there?

Because he thought the play was over. Ask some harder questions please.

You see the problem though, right?If the ref can determine the player intended to do it, why can't he determine whether it was a pass or a fumble?

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's a pass if the player intends to throw it. It's a fumble is the ball comes loose on its own or is jarred loose by another player.Why is this hard? It shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

. . . calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Of course. Exactly. That shouldn't be controversial. To intentionally flick the ball is to pass it. That's not a close call.

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Why would a running back intentionally flick the ball forwards? Edit to add: If he actually does intentionally flick the ball, then yes, that would be a pass.

Why would Vincent Jackson intentionally flip it forward there?

Because he thought the play was over. Ask some harder questions please.

You see the problem though, right?If the ref can determine the player intended to do it, why can't he determine whether it was a pass or a fumble?

Not really. If a QB pump-fakes and the ball slips forward it's an incomplete pass regardless of whether or not the QB intended to throw it. It can never be interpreted as a fumble.

Right, if the QB moved his arm forward on purpose and the ball comes out (whether the QB meant to release it or not), it's a pass.The ref has to judge whether the QB moved his arm forward on purpose, but that's really not so difficult.

 

[[scooter]]

But was Vincent Jackson intentionally fumbling it forward?

Why do people (including ESPN) keep using the word fumble? He intentionally pushed/released the ball, and it went forward.Here is the definition of a pass:

A Pass is the movement of the ball caused by handing, throwing, shoving (shovel pass), or pushing (push pass) by a runner (3-27-1). Such a movement is a pass, even though the ball does not leave his hand or hands, provided a teammate takes it (hand to hand pass).

Here is the definition of a forward pass:

A Forward Pass (8-1-1) is a pass that:

(a) initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent's goal line) after leaving the passer's hands and before touching another player; or

(b) is handed (regardless of the direction of movement of the ball) to a player who is in advance of a teammate from whose hands he takes or receive it.

What is the argument that Jackson didn't do a forward pass? I'm stumped as to why this is controversial at all.

Because Jackson did not push, throw, or hand the ball forward. Therefore, it's not a pass.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

' date='Nov 26 2006, 07:17 PM' post='5966042']

But was Vincent Jackson intentionally fumbling it forward?

Why do people (including ESPN) keep using the word fumble? He intentionally pushed/released the ball, and it went forward.Here is the definition of a pass:

A Pass is the movement of the ball caused by handing, throwing, shoving (shovel pass), or pushing (push pass) by a runner (3-27-1). Such a movement is a pass, even though the ball does not leave his hand or hands, provided a teammate takes it (hand to hand pass).

Here is the definition of a forward pass:

A Forward Pass (8-1-1) is a pass that:

(a) initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent's goal line) after leaving the passer's hands and before touching another player; or

(b) is handed (regardless of the direction of movement of the ball) to a player who is in advance of a teammate from whose hands he takes or receive it.

What is the argument that Jackson didn't do a forward pass? I'm stumped as to why this is controversial at all.

Because Jackson did not push, throw, or hand the ball forward. Therefore, it's not a pass.

Sure he did. He pushed it and threw it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Do you guys remember Rivers' TD pass to Manumaleuna against the Bengals a couple weeks ago?

If Manumaleuna had dropped the pass, do you think it would have been ruled a fumble? Rivers' throwing motion on that play was very similar to Jackson's throwing motion on this play. It was a little push/flick. It was a pass.

 

[GregR_2]

. . . calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Of course. Exactly. That shouldn't be controversial. To intentionally flick the ball is to pass it. That's not a close call.

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Why would a running back intentionally flick the ball forwards? Edit to add: If he actually does intentionally flick the ball, then yes, that would be a pass.

Why would Vincent Jackson intentionally flip it forward there?

Because he thought the play was over. Ask some harder questions please.

You see the problem though, right?If the ref can determine the player intended to do it, why can't he determine whether it was a pass or a fumble?

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's a pass if the player intends to throw it. It's a fumble is the ball comes loose on its own or is jarred loose by another player.Why is this hard? It shouldn't be a problem.

And more importantly, BOTH ARE RULED THE SAME WAY. Look in the ESPN article. "by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass"It was the right call. Let it go.

 

[[scooter]]

' date='Nov 26 2006, 07:17 PM' post='5966042']

Because Jackson did not push, throw, or hand the ball forward. Therefore, it's not a pass.

Sure he did. He pushed it and threw it.

That's a gray area, subject to interpretation by the referee. Fumbles are "pushed" forward all the time (like when a ball slips out as a runner's arm is moving forward), but they are never ruled as an "incomplete pass". Why? Because the refs decide that the player did not intend to pass or fumble the ball.It's all subject to the referee's judgment of the player's intent.

In this case, the ref decided that Jackson "intended" to advance the ball. But he could have just as easily decided that Jackson did not intend to advance the ball.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

. . . calling that a pass is a total farce. Based on what? The motion of his hand flicking?

Of course. Exactly. That shouldn't be controversial. To intentionally flick the ball is to pass it. That's not a close call.

Down the line I could completely see a running back getting tackled, fumbling, having the ball roll forward, a defender jump on it, and the coach make an argument that it was an illegal forward pass.

Why would a running back intentionally flick the ball forwards? Edit to add: If he actually does intentionally flick the ball, then yes, that would be a pass.

Why would Vincent Jackson intentionally flip it forward there?

Because he thought the play was over. Ask some harder questions please.

You see the problem though, right?If the ref can determine the player intended to do it, why can't he determine whether it was a pass or a fumble?

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's a pass if the player intends to throw it. It's a fumble is the ball comes loose on its own or is jarred loose by another player.Why is this hard? It shouldn't be a problem.

And more importantly, BOTH ARE RULED THE SAME WAY. Look in the ESPN article. "by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass"It was the right call. Let it go.

Well, the ESPN article is wrong about that. If a forward fumble is recovered by the defense, it's a change of possession. If an incomplete illegal forward pass is "recovered" by the defense, it's not a change of possession.What ESPN meant to say was "an illegal intentional forward fumble" . . . which isn't really a fumble. So ESPN was sloppy in its wording.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

' date='Nov 26 2006, 07:26 PM' post='5966078']

' date='Nov 26 2006, 07:17 PM' post='5966042']

Because Jackson did not push, throw, or hand the ball forward. Therefore, it's not a pass.

Sure he did. He pushed it and threw it.

That's a gray area, subject to interpretation by the referee.

No, it's really not a gray area. It is quite clear.

Fumbles are "pushed" forward all the time (like when a ball slips out as a runner's arm is moving forward), but they are never ruled as an "incomplete pass". Why? Because the refs decide that the player did not intend to pass or fumble the ball.

Exactly.

It's all subject to the referee's judgment of the player's intent.

Right, which is pretty easy.

In this case, the ref decided that Jackson "intended" to advance the ball. But he could have just as easily decided that Jackson did not intend to advance the ball.

No, it has nothing to do with advancing the ball. It has to do with whether Jackson intended to release the ball (or, if he was pump-faking, to move his arm forward).If he'd intended to release the ball backwards, that would not be advancing it, but it would still be a pass (albeit a backward pass).

Jackson quite clearly intended to release the ball. That is not a gray area. It is obvious. It was a pass.