Ainge Non Fumble

#151
#151
Well we will just have to agree to disagree.

I went back and looked at the slow motion of the play sevreal times, and it is clear that he is attempting to make a forward pass. He pulls his arm back quickly and starts to go forward with his arm when the ball comes out about the time or an instant after he is hit. Under the NCAA rules, that is an incomplete pass by presumption. According to the NCAA, if an player is attempting a forward pass, it is presumed an incomplete pass and not a fumble if someone does not catch it in mid air.
 
#152
#152
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yep, and it still wasn't enough conclusive evidence to reverse the decision made on the field.
Click to expand...

When the rule says that the presumption is incomplete pass when there is any question, it does not take any conclusive evidence by the plain language in the rule. The mere fact there is a question means it is an incomplete pass. If there was not a presumption built into the rule, then it would take conclusive evidence.
 
#153
#153
HwyChile said:
When the rule says that the presumption is incomplete pass when there is any question, it does not take any conclusive evidence by the plain language in the rule. The mere fact there is a question means it is an incomplete pass. If there was not a presumption built into the rule, then it would take conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...

I see where you are going...

I think that this is a nuance that I don't think many people (even the officials apparently) have really come across often or understand. If it was the wrong call based on the letter of the rule, I don't think you can fault the officials for maintaining the spirit of play.
 
#154
#154
Rasputin_Vol said:
I see where you are going...

I think that this is a nuance that I don't think many people (even the officials apparently) have really come across often or understand. If it was the wrong call based on the letter of the rule, I don't think you can fault the officials for maintaining the spirit of play.
Click to expand...

Spirit of the play? What kind of crap is that?

"Well, that was a good hit so we'll just give it to them."

It's not a nuance, it's the rule. If they decided the arm went forward then they blew the call.
 
#155
#155
utvolpj said:
Spirit of the play? What kind of crap is that?

"Well, that was a good hit so we'll just give it to them."

It's not a nuance, it's the rule. If they decided the arm went forward then they blew the call.
Click to expand...

They didn't decide the arm went forward... To say they blew the call on a bang bang play is to harsh, even for a PAC-10 crew. This wasn't a blatant blown call (if you want to call it a blown call) like the Oregon/Oklahoma game last year where they made 2 mistakes in the same play and a pass interference call on a ball that was tipped on the LOS.
 
#156
#156
Rasputin_Vol said:
They didn't decide the arm went forward... To say they blew the call on a bang bang play is to harsh, even for a PAC-10 crew. This wasn't a blatant blown call (if you want to call it a blown call) like the Oregon/Oklahoma game last year where they made 2 mistakes in the same play and a pass interference call on a ball that was tipped on the LOS.
Click to expand...

To be honest we didn't have very good sound where I watched the game. Did they rule it a fumble, a lateral or did they just say the play stands? It makes a difference in whether it was blown or not. All I saw were his hands signal TD.
 
#157
#157
utvolpj said:
To be honest we didn't have very good sound where I watched the game. Did they rule it a fumble, a lateral or did they just say the play stands? It makes a difference in whether it was blown or not. All I saw were his hands signal TD.
Click to expand...
They ruled it a fumble, and then I think they reviewed whether his arm went forward in the replay booth. If the rule is as stated, then the fact that they had to go to the replay booth means that it should have been ruled an incompletion (which I think is pretty bogus, but whatever).

in any event, I'm not miffed or losing sleep about the call because I felt that the spirit of the play should have allowed for the ball to be ruled fumbled and I don't think it made a difference in the outcome of the game. The play was too close to call, but I fel that justice in this instance was served and Follet should have been rewarded for making the play.
 
#158
#158
Rasputin_Vol said:
They didn't decide the arm went forward...
Click to expand...

It is obvious the Pac 10 officials do not know the rules for this issue or they would have called it an incomplete pass. In slow motion, it is very obvious that he pulled his arm back to pass and was "attempting" to make a forward pass. The rule states if there is an "attempted" forward pass, it is incomplete and not a fumble. Officials should know the rules inside and out since that is what they are paid to do. They blew this one big time.

The TV announcers even had the rule wrong. They said even if he was making a forward pass, the fact that the ball ended up behind him makes it a fumble. They could not have been more wrong if they tried.
 
#159
#159
Rasputin_Vol said:
They ruled it a fumble, and then I think they reviewed whether his arm went forward in the replay booth. If the rule is as stated, then the fact that they had to go to the replay booth means that it should have been ruled an incompletion (which I think is pretty bogus, but whatever).
Click to expand...

There is sound logic behind the rule that when a QB makes an attempted forward pass, the presumption is an incomplete pass and not a fumble. I am not sure why you keep saying it is bogus. The QB has the right to attempt to throw the ball (that is part of the game) and if after such an attempt the ball hits the ground, the most obvious presumption is that it is an incomplete pass (since he was attempting to pass it).

Something tells me that you are not a Vol. I see your join date is right before the Cal game.
 
#160
#160
HwyChile said:
It is obvious the Pac 10 officials do not know the rules for this issue or they would have called it an incomplete pass. In slow motion, it is very obvious that he pulled his arm back to pass and was "attempting" to make a forward pass. The rule states if there is an "attempted" forward pass, it is incomplete and not a fumble. Officials should know the rules inside and out since that is what they are paid to do. They blew this one big time.

The TV announcers even had the rule wrong. They said even if he was making a forward pass, the fact that the ball ended up behind him makes it a fumble. They could not have been more wrong if they tried.
Click to expand...

oh come on. There was zero conclusive evidence in that replay to justify overturning the call. And pulling your arm back to make a pass is not the same thing as being in a throwing motion. I agree that you could argue it was an incomplete pass, but to continually state that it was a horrible call is ridiculous. :cray: I'll take 4 pac-10 officials judgement over some random guy on a messageboard. What makes you the expert on how the rules are supposed to be interpreted?
 
#161
#161
If the topic was made more broad, to question the officiating in the game as whole and not on specific plays, I think there's an argument.
That is to say, I don't think there are any obvious, blatent, bad calls that one can poin to and say the game was won or lost based on it.

However, I do think that there was an officiating bias toward the home team where the "benefit of doubt" seemed to always go their way.

EXAMPLES:
Big plays
The Ainge fumble. That could have been called either way, the benefit of the doubt went to Cal.
The blocks in the back during the punt return, again benefit of doubt went to Cal.
2nd half, Cal is backed up close to their goal line and there's a ticky-tack Pass Interference call - again benefit of the doubt Cal.

Three more smaller examples that leaped off the screen to me. I apologize for not knowing the exact game scenarios but here goes:

I believe it was the late Cal drive that put them up by 14. Early in the drive there was an incomplete pass. However, on the right side of the offensive line a UT defender was slung down by the arm - a blatant hold. It went uncalled. It was an incomplete pass, didn't matter right? I don't know.

Also in the 2nd half, I believe it was the same UT drive that was stalled by the early start penalty, down by seven and driving - There were two incomplete passes back to back. One there was a early hit on the receiver. The second, the UT receiver was contacted and held as he went across the middle.
Both went uncalled. The first was less obvious than the 2nd. The first was more contact than the PI that went against UT, but could have been called either way. The latter, hold, was blatant.

I can't say that ANY call in and of itself had impact on the outcome. One play this way or that will rarely make or break a game,

I do believe that there was a 'confidence' on Cal's part that they would get the benefit of the doubt on ANY call, therefore they felt more free to be aggressive.
That's my biased opinion and I'm sticking to it.
 
#162
#162
HwyChile said:
There is sound logic behind the rule that when a QB makes an attempted forward pass, the presumption is an incomplete pass and not a fumble. I am not sure why you keep saying it is bogus. The QB has the right to attempt to throw the ball (that is part of the game) and if after such an attempt the ball hits the ground, the most obvious presumption is that it is an incomplete pass (since he was attempting to pass it).

Something tells me that you are not a Vol. I see your join date is right before the Cal game.
Click to expand...

It's bogus because of the added stipulation about whether the ball not having to go forward to rule it an incomplete pass. If you are going to assume that the arm is going forward, then let the chips fall where they may. If the ball goes forward, then rule it incomplete. I have no problem with that. But if the ball moves laterally or backwards and you are going to assume that the QB's arm was going in a forward motion, than call it a fumble.

Why they have the clause about not making any difference where the ball lands is my main reason for calling the rule bogus and a subtlety/nuance. I don't remember this discussion going on during the Raiders/Pats game when we were looking at that unfold for what seemed to be about 10 minutes.
 
#163
#163
NashvilleEd said:
If the topic was made more broad, to question the officiating in the game as whole and not on specific plays, I think there's an argument.
That is to say, I don't think there are any obvious, blatent, bad calls that one can poin to and say the game was won or lost based on it.

However, I do think that there was an officiating bias toward the home team where the "benefit of doubt" seemed to always go their way.

EXAMPLES:
Big plays
The Ainge fumble. That could have been called either way, the benefit of the doubt went to Cal.
The blocks in the back during the punt return, again benefit of doubt went to Cal.
2nd half, Cal is backed up close to their goal line and there's a ticky-tack Pass Interference call - again benefit of the doubt Cal.

Three more smaller examples that leaped off the screen to me. I apologize for not knowing the exact game scenarios but here goes:

I believe it was the late Cal drive that put them up by 14. Early in the drive there was an incomplete pass. However, on the right side of the offensive line a UT defender was slung down by the arm - a blatant hold. It went uncalled. It was an incomplete pass, didn't matter right? I don't know.

Also in the 2nd half, I believe it was the same UT drive that was stalled by the early start penalty, down by seven and driving - There were two incomplete passes back to back. One there was a early hit on the receiver. The second, the UT receiver was contacted and held as he went across the middle.
Both went uncalled. The first was less obvious than the 2nd. The first was more contact than the PI that went against UT, but could have been called either way. The latter, hold, was blatant.

I can't say that ANY call in and of itself had impact on the outcome. One play this way or that will rarely make or break a game,

I do believe that there was a 'confidence' on Cal's part that they would get the benefit of the doubt on ANY call, therefore they felt more free to be aggressive.
That's my biased opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Click to expand...

Completely reasonable. :good!:
 
#164
#164
tuck_rule.jpg
 
#165
#165
You must not have read the thread. It does not take conclusive evidence when the rule itself says all questions about whether an "attmepted" forward pass are ruled an incomplete pass and not a fumble. You can keep spinning it all you want, but your Pac 10 officials blew two major calls in the game, which is not unusual from what I have heard about them. Of course you will take Pac 10 officials. That is how you win games with their bad calls.
 
#166
#166
NashvilleEd said:
If the topic was made more broad, to question the officiating in the game as whole and not on specific plays, I think there's an argument.
That is to say, I don't think there are any obvious, blatent, bad calls that one can poin to and say the game was won or lost based on it.

However, I do think that there was an officiating bias toward the home team where the "benefit of doubt" seemed to always go their way.

EXAMPLES:
Big plays
The Ainge fumble. That could have been called either way, the benefit of the doubt went to Cal.
The blocks in the back during the punt return, again benefit of doubt went to Cal.
2nd half, Cal is backed up close to their goal line and there's a ticky-tack Pass Interference call - again benefit of the doubt Cal.

Three more smaller examples that leaped off the screen to me. I apologize for not knowing the exact game scenarios but here goes:

I believe it was the late Cal drive that put them up by 14. Early in the drive there was an incomplete pass. However, on the right side of the offensive line a UT defender was slung down by the arm - a blatant hold. It went uncalled. It was an incomplete pass, didn't matter right? I don't know.

Also in the 2nd half, I believe it was the same UT drive that was stalled by the early start penalty, down by seven and driving - There were two incomplete passes back to back. One there was a early hit on the receiver. The second, the UT receiver was contacted and held as he went across the middle.
Both went uncalled. The first was less obvious than the 2nd. The first was more contact than the PI that went against UT, but could have been called either way. The latter, hold, was blatant.

I can't say that ANY call in and of itself had impact on the outcome. One play this way or that will rarely make or break a game,

I do believe that there was a 'confidence' on Cal's part that they would get the benefit of the doubt on ANY call, therefore they felt more free to be aggressive.
That's my biased opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Click to expand...

That is a very good post which I agree mostly agree with.
 
#167
#167
Rasputin_Vol said:
It's bogus because of the added stipulation about whether the ball not having to go forward to rule it an incomplete pass. If you are going to assume that the arm is going forward, then let the chips fall where they may. If the ball goes forward, then rule it incomplete. I have no problem with that. But if the ball moves laterally or backwards and you are going to assume that the QB's arm was going in a forward motion, than call it a fumble.

Why they have the clause about not making any difference where the ball lands is my main reason for calling the rule bogus and a subtlety/nuance. I don't remember this discussion going on during the Raiders/Pats game when we were looking at that unfold for what seemed to be about 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

They should put in the rule that the arm must be going forward prior to the ball coming out. That much I agree. However, where the ball lands on the ground is not relevant if it is a forward pass. Otherwise, all batted down forward passes that land behind the QB would be fumbles. Laterals would make a difference where the ball lands.

The bottom line is that the rules are the rules and under the rules, it was an incomplete pass because Angie was "attempting" to pass it when it came out. Anybody who looks at the slow motion tape and does not see that he pulls his arm back in an attempt to throw the ball and then throws his arm forward to throw it as he gets hit is either blind or not honest. When he pulls the arm back, that is the first part of his passing motion which shows the clear "attempt" to make a forward pass.
 
#168
#168
Rasputin_Vol said:
They didn't decide the arm went forward... To say they blew the call on a bang bang play is to harsh, even for a PAC-10 crew. This wasn't a blatant blown call (if you want to call it a blown call) like the Oregon/Oklahoma game last year where they made 2 mistakes in the same play and a pass interference call on a ball that was tipped on the LOS.
Click to expand...

You do realize 2 of the officials in our game were involved in the OU/Oregon mishap last year, right?
 
#169
#169
Concerning the pass play/fumble two hypothetical examples:

1) If a wide out moves backward, behind the QB and drops a 'pass' is it considered an incomplete pass or is it a fumbled lateral?

2) In the same scenario as example 1, if the pass were attempted but batted down by the defensive end, would it be an incomplete pass or fumbled lateral?
 
#170
#170
HwyChile said:
When he pulls the arm back, that is the first part of his passing motion which shows the clear "attempt" to make a forward pass.
Click to expand...

not true. it's not a passing motion until his arm starts going forward. his arm did not go forward until he was hit.
 
#172
#172
I thought it was a fumble. Looks like the ball slips loose before his forward motion begins.
 
#173
#173
droski said:
not true. it's not a passing motion until his arm starts going forward. his arm did not go forward until he was hit.
Click to expand...

But his arm is going forward in a passing motion when the ball come out, which is an incomplete pass under the rules. The fact he was hit while he was passing the ball is not relevant. Your officials got it wrong.
 
#175
#175
HwyChile said:
But his arm is going forward in a passing motion when the ball come out, which is an incomplete pass under the rules. The fact he was hit while he was passing the ball is not relevant. Your officials got it wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually it is.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top