Forward Fumble

Donate To GopherHole
G

gophergeek

New member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Was there a change in the rulebook between the Nebraska and Iowa games? Why was there a difference in ruling on the placement of the football after the ball had been fumbled forwards?
 

The Nebraska fumble was a backwards pass that was muffed forward, our fumble was just a straight up fumble. Why they ever had 2 different rules for fumbles is a good question.
 

Zales04 said:
The Nebraska fumble was a backwards pass that was muffed forward, our fumble was just a straight up fumble. Why they ever had 2 different rules for fumbles is a good question.
Click to expand...
Because they aren't both fumbles I don't think. As I understood it, a backwards pass is live from the second it leaves the QB's hand. The touching (or not touching) of the ball by a receiver and where it goes are inconsequential under the rule. But, don't ask for a link as I don't have one. :)
 

GoAUpher said:
Because they aren't both fumbles I don't think. As I understood it, a backwards pass is live from the second it leaves the QB's hand. The touching (or not touching) of the ball by a receiver and where it goes are inconsequential under the rule. But, don't ask for a link as I don't have one. :)
Click to expand...

I think you're right. It's a rule I think should be changed and can be very easily IMO.

On a backward pass, a ball should be ruled a fumble just like a normal fumble when
1. the ball first hits another player but the ball is never controlled. So in the Nebraska situation, it would have been determined a "fumble" at the point the Nebraska RB first touched it. That's the point where the ball essentially was no longer in control.
2. the ball is pitched or thrown backwards and is not touched by anyone. Wherever it hits the ground, that's where it becomes a fumble.
 

Let's not confuse a pass versus a lateral.

A ball thrown backwards(in relation to it's release point) is a lateral, whether it is thrown overhand or underhand, and is a live ball whether it is touched or not.

A ball thrown forward(in relation to it's release point) is a forward pass, whether it is thrown overhand or underhand and is an incomplete pass if it is not caught by a player before it hits the ground. If the ball is thrown forward by someone that is past the line of scrimage it is the same as forward pass and ruled incomplete with a penalty added on. Some times this is referred to as a forward lateral.
 


station19 said:
Let's not confuse a pass versus a lateral.

A ball thrown backwards(in relation to the line of scrimage) is a lateral, whether it is thrown overhand or underhand, and is a live ball whether it is touched or not.

A ball thrown forward(in relation to the line of scrimage) is a forward pass, whether it is thrown overhand or underhand and is an incomplete pass if it is not caught by a player before it hits the ground. If the ball is thrown forward by someone that is past the line of scrimage it is the same as forward pass and ruled incomplete with a penalty added on. Some times this is referred to as a forward lateral.
Click to expand...

It's Friday so my reading comprehension may be off but should it be "in relation to the release point?"
 

mnsports is correct. A ball thrown forwards "in relation to the release point" is still incomplete even if it nevers reaches the line of scrimmage.
 

I could see someone drawing up a very sneaky play to get a couple of yards. Have the WR line up a couple yards off the line of scrimmage, and snap the ball. QB tosses the ball backwards and the WR bats it forwards and out of bounds -- first down! Of course, the risk is that it doesn't go out of bounds...
 

eker0016 said:
I could see someone drawing up a very sneaky play to get a couple of yards. Have the WR line up a couple yards off the line of scrimmage, and snap the ball. QB tosses the ball backwards and the WR bats it forwards and out of bounds -- first down! Of course, the risk is that it doesn't go out of bounds...
Click to expand...

The problem with that type of play is that if the ref thinks you are doing it intentionally then you will get flagged for "illegal batting" (fifteen yards and loss of down). So with the risk of getting the ball to go where you want it to and making it look accidental make it unlikely that such a play could ever be run.
 



et hoc transibit said:
The problem with that type of play is that if the ref thinks you are doing it intentionally then you will get flagged for "illegal batting" (fifteen yards and loss of down). So with the risk of getting the ball to go where you want it to and making it look accidental make it unlikely that such a play could ever be run.
Click to expand...
Good point. I never recall seeing "batting" being called, but it could. I still think that if a lateral is incidently hit forward and OB the ball should be brought back to the point where it was hit.
 

If you intentionally batted the ball, you would have to be make it look like an accident. I can imagine a player taking a pitch on 4th down late in a game, and seeing that he's not going to have a chance, so instead of catching it, bats it forward, and then puts on an act as if it was an accident. I don't know if the rule will be changed or not, hopefully, we don't see this again, or at least won't be on the bad side of it.
 


Last week Troy Polumalu dove for a ball around the 15 and punched it into the end zone. I don't recall if it was recovered for a touchdown or went out for a safety but the reviews showed that he clearly punched at the ball. However, there was a member of the offense diving as well and no penalty was called. So it is possible to get away with it but not likely.
 



It had something to do with the heating coils that were missing from the field.
 

If the Nebraska muffed lateral had been redirected forward by the dude's foot (instead of hand), would it be a punt?!

notsureifserious.jpg
 

Any rule that requires the referees to speculate about the motivations and internal thought process of a player is bound to be a great one.
 

RedPoo said:
Any rule that requires the referees to speculate about the motivations and internal thought process of a player is bound to be a great one.
Click to expand...
I can see it now. First it was video replay challenges, and now it's gonna be player polygraph test challenges. So, would coaches get two of each, or two total? Either way, can't wait!
 


Okie said:
I can see it now. First it was video replay challenges, and now it's gonna be player polygraph test challenges. So, would coaches get two of each, or two total? Either way, can't wait!
Click to expand...

It won't be long before the referees conduct a "spot" DNA test on the football in regards to controversial plays!
 

I don't have anything new to add here, other than to say that most of the posters above have it right about the rule. I work with a college ref and have had long discussions with him about this play.
Basically it comes down to the "muff" rule and because it wasn't deemed a fumble -- a muff can be advanced forward. I asked, well, why don't teams do it intentionally - because then it would be a penalty for "batting".

I told him they need to get rid of the backwards pass muff rule - why reward a team for muffing a play?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom