THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If someone is playing QB and tosses the ball over
> his head and spikes it 20 yards down field like
> its a volleyball serve, do you consider that a
> forward pass attempt as well?


If it actually happened "probably" yes, but I would have to see it to be conclusive... I saw RT throw the ball and get hit in the process and the ball went from his passing arm and passing motion ten yards down field in the direction of his WR.... SO to me it was a pass and the question of control should be about actually where the ball went.. Because that is a sign of control... Did the ball travel down field, did it go in the direction of the WR... Kind of like they judge intentional grounding....Was there a receiver in the area, was he trying to get it to him...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

I know I am biased in this case BUT...

I did not see "conclusive" evidence -- by ANY measure, on the replay that Thill was not still in the process of throwing the football.

But more to the point. That call is NOT made 9 times out of 10. And to make it as a reversal is all the more absurd.

The video has to 100% prove the case -- and there's no way because the ball was still in Thill's hand as his hand was moving forward. So maybe it was a "muffed" pass but it was NOT a fumble.

I mean. What the TUCK! It was bogus. End of story.

Where's the glory.

BNF.

he didnt had control of the ball his hand was even open i saw the replay many times.

He did not had the ball in the grip of his hand. He pushed the ball forward.

If he didn't have some degree of "control" the ball would not have been projected (i.e., "thrown" 10 yards down field.

BigNastyFish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If he didn't have some degree of "control" the
> ball would not have been projected (i.e.,
> "thrown" 10 yards down field.


That's just not true.

In this case he had no control. The ball was out of his grasp and falling in front of his arm when he completed his throwing motion by bring his arm forward.

It was the impact of his wrist with the ball he no longer had controlled of that propelled the ball 10 yards down field.

It's about controlling the ball. Either you have possession when your arm starts forward or you do not.

If you do not, then it's a fumble that you pushed, shoved, swatted down field.

It's like when someone makes a catch and the ball comes out of his hand for an instant when he hits the ground. It doesn't count if you don't maintain control of the ball throughout the process.

In this case, RT didn't have control of the ball when his hand started forward.

Feel free to disagree with the rule, but that doesn't change the fact that it was enforced correctly.

Like I said. It was a bogus call. And 90% of the time that call does NOT get made. Beyond that -- whatever. That's MY OPINION and I'm sticking to it.

But if Manning or the Lady or Rothlesburger or Rogers or etc make that "attempted pass" it's going to be ruled incomplete and not a fumble.

Reversing the call on the field was all the more BOGUS IMO.

IT would have been incomplete with Brady without a doubt

That we can ALL agree on, dolphin.

his hand went backwards.......before it came forward.......he lost controlof the ball.....

then while he was going forward he pushed the ball with the palmof his hand......He could had pushed it with his elbow and it would had been the same result.....A fumble...

samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> his hand went backwards.......before it came
> forward.......he lost controlof the ball.....
>
> then while he was going forward he pushed the ball
> with the palmof his hand......He could had pushed
> it with his elbow and it would had been the same
> result.....A fumble...

Answer this. If the ball he "pushed" would have been caught by a player, would that have been logged as a completed pass or a forward fumble?

"If the passer loses possession of the ball while attempting to recock his arm, it is a fumble."

RT never recocked his arm. This was no tuck rule nonsense, which is now removed from the rule book. And again I bring the same questions. Please refer me to a single play in NFL history when a QB launched a ball 12 yards forward at the peak of his extended throwing motion and it was considered a fumble. Had that ball been caught we would have had an interception. AND AGAIN I have seen this exact play 1,000 times and seen it called an incomplete. I don't know why Tom Brady comes to mind but off the top of my head but I feel like I've seen dozens of plays that look like this from a pass Brady has thrown and never seen it get called a fumble. Forget Brady, ANY QB.

I'm sorry but in the most archaic of terms, the ball needs to hit the ground upon impact from the hit of a D-lineman for a fumble to get called, not FLLLYYY forward and hit the hash marks in front of a WR's feet 12 yards down the field. When you track the ball up and aaalllllll the way down like you do a home run hit in baseball, across the football field. The ball was launched forward. That is it. That is all. That is the end. The QB threw the ball forward. It left his hands and landed 12 yards in front if him. Maintaining control would imply that he could not have launched the ball forward in the manner he did. But he did. He had enough control to throw the ball at the end point of his throwing motion. That's a throw. It was a shitty call. And even worse, with the play being over, awarding possession to the team of the guy that hands the ball to the ref??? A fumble is something you cant go back on after killing the play. Otherwise we would have won the Steelers game we played last year when Ben fumbled in his own endzone but we didn't get it because the play was over, despite the fact that we covered up the ball.

Panteraize Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If the passer loses possession of the ball while
> attempting to recock his arm, it is a fumble."
>
> RT never recocked his arm. This was no tuck rule
> nonsense, which is now removed from the rule book.
> And again I bring the same questions.

That's passage is defining what is a "tuck" rule incompletion and what is a fumble.

Under the tuck rule its incomplete if his hand starts forward and he starts to pull the ball down. That's a bullshit rule but it was a rule nonetheless.

The passage you quoted has NOTHING to do with the RT play because his hand NEVER started forward with the ball in it to initate a forward pass attempt. All it does is clarify that if a tuck rule situation occurs and he "attempts to re-cock" or reload his arm to throw and the ball comes out then then its a fumble.




> Please refer
> me to a single play in NFL history when a QB
> launched a ball 12 yards forward at the peak of
> his extended throwing motion and it was considered
> a fumble. Had that ball been caught we would have
> had an interception. AND AGAIN I have seen this
> exact play 1,000 times and seen it called an
> incomplete. I don't know why Tom Brady comes to
> mind but off the top of my head but I feel like
> I've seen dozens of plays that look like this from
> a pass Brady has thrown and never seen it get
> called a fumble. Forget Brady, ANY QB.




Yes...because nobody can instantly find a clip show a rule being enforced in the past the rule can't exist.


If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?




>
> I'm sorry but in the most archaic of terms, the
> ball needs to hit the ground upon impact from the
> hit of a D-lineman for a fumble to get called, not
> FLLLYYY forward and hit the hash marks in front of
> a WR's feet 12 yards down the field. When you
> track the ball up and aaalllllll the way down like
> you do a home run hit in baseball, across the
> football field. The ball was launched forward.
> That is it. That is all. That is the end. The QB
> threw the ball forward. It left his hands and
> landed 12 yards in front if him. Maintaining
> control would imply that he could not have
> launched the ball forward in the manner he did.
> But he did. He had enough control to throw the
> ball at the end point of his throwing motion.
> That's a throw. It was a shitty call.

You can lead a horse to water...




> And even
> worse, with the play being over, awarding
> possession to the team of the guy that hands the
> ball to the ref??? A fumble is something you cant
> go back on after killing the play. Otherwise we
> would have won the Steelers game we played last
> year when Ben fumbled in his own endzone but we
> didn't get it because the play was over, despite
> the fact that we covered up the ball.

That's an entirely different matter.

If a ref had blown the call dead (blowing his whistle and waving his arms to indicate an incomplete pass) and then given it to Indy it WOULD have been a travesty.

But again...watch the replay. No official blew the ball dead.

So the only thing they could do...under the rules...is give the ball to the team that recovered it...which they did.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Rule 8 Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble
> > Section 1 Forward Pass
> > DEFINITION
> >
> > Article 1 Definition It is a forward pass if:
> > (a) the ball initially moves forward (to a
> point
> > nearer the opponent’s goal line) after
> leaving
> > the passer’s
> > hand(s); or
> > (b) the ball first strikes the ground, a
> player,
> > an official, or anything else at a point that
> is
> > nearer the
> > opponent’s goal line than the point at which
> the
> > ball leaves the passer’s hand(s).
> > Note: A ball that is intentionally fumbled and
> > goes forward is a forward pass. A ball that is
> > intentionally muffed,
> > and goes forward or backward, is a batted ball
> > (12-1-8). The direction taken by a fumbled or
> > muffed ball
> > does not affect the application of the rules
> > specific to such acts, unless it is ruled that
> > they are intentional.
> >
> >
> > When a player is in control of the ball and
> > attempting to pass it forward, any intentional
> > forward movement of his hand starts a forward
> > pass.
> >
>
> Commentary: This says it all,
>
> 1)he was attempting to throw a forward pass,
> contact by the opposing player caused him to lose
> a firm grip ALTHOUGH THE BALL WAS STILL FULLY IN
> HIS HANDS WITH NO OPPONENT'S HAND TOUCHING THE
> BALL IN ANY WAY and
>
> 2) He PUSHED the ball forward and it landed 12
> yards ahead. This fully satisfies the rule.
>
> In fact, as this post quotes
>
>
> > (a) If the passer is attempting to throw a
> forward
> > pass, but contact by an opponent materially
> > affects him,
> > causing the ball to go backward, it is a
> forward
> > pass, regardless of where the ball strikes the
> > ground,
>
> Commentary: So EVEN IF THE BALL HAD GONE BACKWARD
> had the pass rusher hit Tanny's arm, it would have
> been regarded a forward pass. Incredible how
> Truth could read this and come up with a fumble.
>
>
> >Now having read the actual rules, please go
> watch
> >the replay again.
>
> Commentary: Now having read the rules, ask
> someone to explain them to you Truth.
>
> >
> >
> > CLEARLY RT didn't have control of the ball
> (butter
> > substitute or not) when his HAND started
> forward.
> > That's indisputable. The rules state that
> under
> > those circumstances, it is not a forward pass.
>
> > If its not a forward pass then its a fumble.
>
> >
>
>
> Commentary: Wrong! He had enough control to push
> the ball forward.
>
> What is "control"?
>
> If by control, you mean that the Quarterback can
> put the ball exactly where he tends to put it then
> that is an unrealistically narrow definition of
> control AND BY THAT DEFINITION A QUARTERBACK WITH
> A PASS RUSHER'S ARMS WRAPPED AROUND HIS CHEST AND
> can only throw five yards and it goes on the
> ground then is it a fumble? By that definition it
> is because he did not have full "control" of the
> football in that he could not do everything he
> wanted to with it. ....Even though he had a full
> grasp of the football.
>
> Truth's definition of "control" is really the same
> as a "full grasp".
>
> But the rule says "control" not "grasp."
>
> But let's take my definition of control. My
> definition of control is that you have enough
> custody of the ball that you can direct where it
> goes. Here, Tanny had enough "control" of the
> ball that he pushed it 12 yards forward. I would
> say that met the rules definition of "control"
> although it does not meet Truth's unrealistic
> definition thereof which is really a definition of
> "grasp."
>
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually the ball was launched forward by the
> > kinetic energy generated by impacting his arm,
>
> Commentary: This is the only non-gibberish part.
> I will respond to it. By this Truth means that
> when the rusher hit Tanny's arm, the ball was
> forced forward out of his hand.
>
> My response is that Truth should go back and look
> at the tape. Tanny clearly pushed the ball
> forward, even if only as one would a volleyball or
> a basketball neither of which one can palm like a
> football.
>
> That's just plain from the tape. For Godsakes
> nobody even HIT his arm!!!
>
>
>
> > which the ball had not been connected to just
> > prior to that impact, and was not connected to
> > when that hand started forward.
>
> Commentary: The ball was not connected to his
> "arm"???? What about his "hand" which he used to
> push the ball?????????
>
>
> > Not that the word "launched" has anything to do
> > with anything in the NFL rule book concerning
> this
> > issue.
>
> Commentary: I think it's the "forward motion"
> part of the rules, Truth. LOL.
>
> >
> >
> > I get that this is an emotional issue for you.
>
> > But you are wrong about it not being a fumble.
> >
> > The refs got it right.
> >
> > Just read the rules. Its all right there.
>
> He WAS reading the rules, Truth. I quoted the
> same text in my post. Of course, having me
> blocked you won't know that. Of course, unless
> Panteraize quotes this response to you.


There you go Chyren. I've got you quoted, just in case some others may have you blocked. I don't know why Truth is fighting this tooth and nail. I think the rules you reproduced on this thread speak to that, logic speaks to that, and the replay speaks to that. I'm not even shacky about the call. It was a mouth-gaping-wide-open-in-sock call. I have never seen a play like that in my life get called a fumble. It was a bad call. Bad calls happen. I'm not trying to get the president to pass legislation about it, but shoot let's call it for what it is. The call was wrong. The subsequent penalties on the Colts were even more support for this.

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> samsam3738 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > his hand went backwards.......before it came
> > forward.......he lost controlof the ball.....
> >
> > then while he was going forward he pushed the
> ball
> > with the palmof his hand......He could had
> pushed
> > it with his elbow and it would had been the
> same
> > result.....A fumble...
>
> Answer this. If the ball he "pushed" would have
> been caught by a player, would that have been
> logged as a completed pass or a forward fumble?

Even if the ball was fumbled but didnt hit the ground and was pushed forward with the elbows.....still been a fumble and caught by the receiver 2 yards away.....it would had been called a completed pass...

But it was still a fumble.

samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> montequi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > samsam3738 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > his hand went backwards.......before it came
> > > forward.......he lost controlof the ball.....
> > >
> > > then while he was going forward he pushed the
> > ball
> > > with the palmof his hand......He could had
> > pushed
> > > it with his elbow and it would had been the
> > same
> > > result.....A fumble...
> >
> > Answer this. If the ball he "pushed" would
> have
> > been caught by a player, would that have been
> > logged as a completed pass or a forward fumble?
>
> Even if the ball was fumbled but didnt hit the
> ground and was pushed forward with the
> elbows.....still been a fumble and caught by the
> receiver 2 yards away.....it would had been called
> a completed pass...
>
> But it was still a fumble.

Exactly right sam.

I probably would have been ruled a catch of a pass on the field and never reviewed because reviewing it doesn't change the outcome of the play.

If it were to be changed, it would have been done by the league office after the game. They do this all the time with sacks.

That Reggie Wayne call was correct I believe; I remember watching the replay. He was in motion running along the line of scrimmage, but then turned upfield and appeared to be running in place when the ball was snapped. I think that once he turns upfield he has to stop and be set at the line of scrimmage. A player can be in motion at the snap as long as he is moving parallel to the LOS. Am I right?

chrenB Wrote:
>
> That's just plain from the tape. For Godsakes
> nobody even HIT his arm!!!



It got all messed up as far as who said what on the panteraize quote........so i believe you said this chren?

What do you mean nobody hit his arm....He even has an injury because of someone hitting his arm/Shoulder or hands on that play. Somebody hit him somewhere that he got hurt.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2013 06:21AM by samsam3738.

When you see the replay of him pushing the ball, no one was contacting the arm that threw the ball.

If it had, then NO ONE would dispute the call of a fumble.

No great mystery with your question though. Two easy explanations.

1) His OTHER arm?

2) The injury occurred AFTER the throw?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2013 10:03AM by ChyrenB.