Opinions wanted on fumble rule.

[Op2]

Didja see the funky play that Pitt lost on? The Pitt defender forced a the Stanford player to fumble at the 3 yard line and the ball flew in the air and another Stanford guy caught it in the endzone. Yes, maybe Pitt would have lost anyway but that's not the point.

The point is, I think the rule should be, if you fumble and your team recovers it further down the field, the ball should come back to the point of the fumble. A team should never be rewarded for fumbling. But that's just my opinion and I'd be curious to see what others say.

 

[Madsol]

Didja see the funky play that Pitt lost on? The Pitt defender forced a the Stanford player to fumble at the 3 yard line and the ball flew in the air and another Stanford guy caught it in the endzone. Yes, maybe Pitt would have lost anyway but that's not the point.

The point is, I think the rule should be, if you fumble and your team recovers it further down the field, the ball should come back to the point of the fumble. A team should never be rewarded for fumbling. But that's just my opinion and I'd be curious to see what others say.

I do think there is a rule like that if the fumble happens on 4th down or late in the game, like in the last 2 minutes, where only the person who fumbled it can recover it if it is fumbled forward, otherwise it goes back to the spot of the fumble. But I don't know the particulars

 

[91Joe95]

**** pitt.

 

[steelrazor]

I would tend to agree unless the ball never hits the ground. Which in this instance it didn’t.

 

[lein]

I would tend to agree unless the ball never hits the ground. Which in this instance it didn’t.

By definition, wasn't that a forward pass? The Stanford player tossed the ball up in the air from behind the line of scrimmage. An eligible receiver caught it in the endzone.

So maybe the question is if there was any offensive lineman down field since the pass was caught beyond the line of scrimmage. I think may have been, #71 was about 3 yards deep in the endzone.

replay link

 

[heckmans]

Didja see the funky play that Pitt lost on? The Pitt defender forced a the Stanford player to fumble at the 3 yard line and the ball flew in the air and another Stanford guy caught it in the endzone. Yes, maybe Pitt would have lost anyway but that's not the point.

The point is, I think the rule should be, if you fumble and your team recovers it further down the field, the ball should come back to the point of the fumble. A team should never be rewarded for fumbling. But that's just my opinion and I'd be curious to see what others say.

FWIW. Here is the play. Ruled a fumble recovery (not a pass).

 

[lein]

FWIW. Here is the play. Ruled a fumble recovery (not a pass).

View embedded media

But is that the correct ruling? There is nothing that says what a pass looks like (underhand, over the back, behind the back). If it wasn't a lateral or didn't hit the ground, then I don't understand why they would call it a fumble.

 

[Op2]

But is that the correct ruling? There is nothing that says what a pass looks like (underhand, over the back, behind the back). If it wasn't a lateral or didn't hit the ground, then I don't understand why they would call it a fumble.

My guess is that a pass is intentional and a fumble is not. The Stanford guy didn't mean to let go of the ball but was forced to do so.

 

[heckmans]

But is that the correct ruling? There is nothing that says what a pass looks like (underhand, over the back, behind the back). If it wasn't a lateral or didn't hit the ground, then I don't understand why they would call it a fumble.

I don't know the correct ruling on this play regarding a foward fumble, but it's NOT true to say there is nothing that says what a pass looks like. Every time a QB gets hits at the time of release, they review and make a determination on pass vs fumble. It's quite clear. If the QB is propelling the ball forward with his arm/hand, it is a pass. If he isn't, it's a fumble.

 

[LafayetteBear]

The point is, I think the rule should be, if you fumble and your team recovers it further down the field, the ball should come back to the point of the fumble. A team should never be rewarded for fumbling. But that's just my opinion and I'd be curious to see what others say.

You would have loved this play.

 

[AvgUser]

I had not seen that play previously as I didn't care to watch the game. However, from the replay clip above, the runner/passer was behind the line of scrimmage. Since the ball was caught out of the air, it could have been a pass and therefore, not illegal.

What could have been challenged if it were a pass was if there were any ineligible receivers downfield. Given the LoS was the two yard line, it seems like "downfield" is not possible (Im not sure how the 10-yard end zone factors in to the ineligible receive rule and I'm too lazy to look).

I didn't watch the clip in slo-motion either. but, in trying to brak the tackle, the runner appeared to lunge his arm forward (i.e., a forward pass, albeit underhanded). Hence, if the ball had hit the ground and Pitt Covered it, i suppose it could have been argued/ruled is was an incomplete forward pass.

For those that watched the game, did they have one of the so-called rules experts chime in on the events and why/why not is was ruled as such? Was there a slo-mo replay this showed the Pitt defender knocking the ball out of the hand?

 

[Op2]

I had not seen that play previously as I didn't care to watch the game. However, from the replay clip above, the runner/passer was behind the line of scrimmage. Since the ball was caught out of the air, it could have been a pass and therefore, not illegal.

What could have been challenged if it were a pass was if there were any ineligible receivers downfield. Given the LoS was the two yard line, it seems like "downfield" is not possible (Im not sure how the 10-yard end zone factors in to the ineligible receive rule and I'm too lazy to look).

I didn't watch the clip in slo-motion either. but, in trying to brak the tackle, the runner appeared to lunge his arm forward (i.e., a forward pass, albeit underhanded). Hence, if the ball had hit the ground and Pitt Covered it, i suppose it could have been argued/ruled is was an incomplete forward pass.

For those that watched the game, did they have one of the so-called rules experts chime in on the events and why/why not is was ruled as such? Was there a slo-mo replay this showed the Pitt defender knocking the ball out of the hand?

I watched the game and I don't think they mentioned the possibility that the QB was trying to pass. It was a designed running play. Watch the OL go forward right after the snap. It was a designed run for the QB and he fumbled it forward in the air right to the RB he had just faked the handoff to. Lucky play for Stanford but it still counts as a TD.

ETA: After watching again I think the idea was for the OLs on the left to block guys leftward and the OLs on the right to block guys rightward. And the center and the RB, who had been faked the handoff to, to go straight up the middle and block for the QB, who was supposed to run the ball.

 

[lein]

I don't know the correct ruling on this play regarding a foward fumble, but it's NOT true to say there is nothing that says what a pass looks like. Every time a QB gets hits at the time of release, they review and make a determination on pass vs fumble. It's quite clear. If the QB is propelling the ball forward with his arm/hand, it is a pass. If he isn't, it's a fumble.

yeah, but those "was his hand going forward" calls often result on a recovery when the ball hits the ground. This one didn't. Maybe looking at it another way, if a defensive player had caught it in the air, would it be an interception?

 

[heckmans]

yeah, but those "was his hand going forward" calls often result on a recovery when the ball hits the ground. This one didn't. Maybe looking at it another way, if a defensive player had caught it in the air, would it be an interception?

1. That wasn't your post. There IS a definition of a pass vs a fumble.
2. To answer your new question: No. It was a fumble. Only a pass can be intercepted and it wasn't a pass. If a defensive player caught it, It would have been a fumble recovery. If he was tackled in the end zone it would have been a touchback.

 

[Obliviax]

NFL has that rule...I believe in the final two minutes, to keep players from fumbling forward on purpose. In college, no such rule

 

[LafayetteBear]

NFL has that rule...I believe in the final two minutes, to keep players from fumbling forward on purpose. In college, no such rule

That rule was enacted as a direct result of the Holy Roller play I linked above.