I wasn't able to watch the game yesterday, just watched play by play on my phone. Was that play a correct overturn?

Unfortunately, it was the "tuck" rule

It was not the tuck rule. Arm was moving forward when he released it, therefore it was an incomplete pass. I thought is was the correct call, and fairly obvious.

Thanks

I thought that the ball came out just before his arm was moving forward and he pushed the ball forward... maybe it was just my homerism

[list=
?[/list]

Pstark3 wrote:I thought that the ball came out just before his arm was moving forward and he pushed the ball forward... maybe it was just my homerism

This!

Seanhawk wrote:It was not the tuck rule. Arm was moving forward when he released it, therefore it was an incomplete pass. I thought is was the correct call, and fairly obvious.

Your right, went back and re-watched. Just an incomplete pass. I agree it was the correct call as well.

It was the correct call, but honestly I think Sam Bradford was rather lucky that Clemons was there because it was very close to intentional grounding.

Spounge84 wrote:It was the correct call, but honestly I think Sam Bradford was rather lucky that Clemons was there because it was very close to intentional grounding.

I agree it should have been an intentional grounding because it didn't get back to the LOS...

But to go back, I think the reason it took so long is it was a millisecond away from being a fumble and the refs needed to see he had full grasp of the ball in his right hand when his arm went forward. Close call either way - but definitely at a minimum should have been an Intentional Grounding penalty. I guess there was a holding call on the play so we had to replay the down - so it wasn't all bad.

Are these QB's trained at this point, to just throw their arm forward when they feel the ball leave their grasp? It just seems to me that split millisecond when they feel the ball leaving from an impact or whatever, that they just automatically throw they arm forward like a pass, to have a shot at the 'incomplete pass' call rather than a fumble call.

And it seems to work a lot if that's the case.

Sorry, just early morning ramblings, not enough coffee yet.

Twisted I agree with you I often see (not just Seahawk games) a quarterback getting lucky on a fumble cause their arm sorta moved forward. That is a rule that needs to be re-evaluated same with tuck rule.

To me it looked as if the arm came forward because of the hit. I thought it was a fumble but oh well, at least this didn't change the outcome of the game.

Kixkahn wrote:Twisted I agree with you I often see (not just Seahawk games) a quarterback getting lucky on a fumble cause their arm sorta moved forward. That is a rule that needs to be re-evaluated same with tuck rule.

Yep, it happened in 3, maybe 4 games I watched yesterday

I don't think you can call that intentional grounding because when Clemons make contact it affects the trajectory of the throw and essentially forces the pass to go nowhere.

I THINK that was the jist of Mike Pereira's explanation anyway

themunn wrote:I don't think you can call that intentional grounding because when Clemons make contact it affects the trajectory of the throw and essentially forces the pass to go nowhere.

I THINK that was the jist of Mike Pereira's explanation anyway

I have been wondering about this since I heard the explanation yesterday. Is it if a defensive player touches the QB?..or the ball?
Because if intentional grounding is taken away as soon as the QB is touched - then regardless of where they are in the pocket or if a receiver is
anywhere to be found - they are free to just sling it anywhere at that point - no?

Maybe I'm missing something...

HawkFreak wrote:

themunn wrote:I don't think you can call that intentional grounding because when Clemons make contact it affects the trajectory of the throw and essentially forces the pass to go nowhere.

I THINK that was the jist of Mike Pereira's explanation anyway

I have been wondering about this since I heard the explanation yesterday. Is it if a defensive player touches the QB?..or the ball?
Because if intentional grounding is taken away as soon as the QB is touched - then regardless of where they are in the pocket or if a receiver is
anywhere to be found - they are free to just sling it anywhere at that point - no?

Maybe I'm missing something...

The way Pereira explained it was this rule only applies if the defender makes contact after the throwing motion as begun.

Seanhawk wrote:

HawkFreak wrote:

themunn wrote:I don't think you can call that intentional grounding because when Clemons make contact it affects the trajectory of the throw and essentially forces the pass to go nowhere.

I THINK that was the jist of Mike Pereira's explanation anyway

I have been wondering about this since I heard the explanation yesterday. Is it if a defensive player touches the QB?..or the ball?
Because if intentional grounding is taken away as soon as the QB is touched - then regardless of where they are in the pocket or if a receiver is
anywhere to be found - they are free to just sling it anywhere at that point - no?

Maybe I'm missing something...

The way Pereira explained it was this rule only applies if the defender makes contact after the throwing motion as begun.

Ah OK. I must have missed that part. Thanks.

HawkFreak wrote:

themunn wrote:I don't think you can call that intentional grounding because when Clemons make contact it affects the trajectory of the throw and essentially forces the pass to go nowhere.

I THINK that was the jist of Mike Pereira's explanation anyway

I have been wondering about this since I heard the explanation yesterday. Is it if a defensive player touches the QB?..or the ball?
Because if intentional grounding is taken away as soon as the QB is touched - then regardless of where they are in the pocket or if a receiver is
anywhere to be found - they are free to just sling it anywhere at that point - no?

Maybe I'm missing something...

Possibly, the thing with the whole "arm moving forward" this is that it's definitely a cop-out, that's not an incomplete pass, it's a fumble - and the ball was knocked out by the defender

So perhaps, essentially it can only be intentional grounding if it doesn't look as if the contact actually forced the ball to come loose - say for example a defender is pulling at the leg of the QB to bring him down and the quarterback slings it away into no-mans land.

I think it's purely a judgement call by the ref, and in that case I don't think Bradford was trying to get rid of the ball (it could have gone anywhere and been intercepted), but rather, simply lost it because the hit knocked it out of his hand as it was going forward (lucky boy)

Looked to me like he was carrying out a half ass pump fake when he got hit and the ball came out, not an actual attempt at a forward pass. But, they gave the same call to Brady against Oakland in the playoffs so at least they're consistent in their inconsistencies.

The ball came out in a forward trajectory because of the hit.

I personally rule it a fumble.

Same thing happened to us this year with Wilson. Different ruling that game.

It was the correct call. It was a very close call, but they got it right after the replay.

AF_Hawk wrote:To me it looked as if the arm came forward because of the hit. I thought it was a fumble but oh well, at least this didn't change the outcome of the game.

This. I agree 100%. His arm was yet to move forward until contact was made (which the impact forced it forward). However, this may not make a difference? The ball was definitely released while coming forward, so perhaps someone more astute to the rules would be able to answer this question.

If I had a vote I'd say the QB should be held to the same standard as any ball carrier who has to maintain control throughout a catch. I've seen too many "incomplete passes" due to a ball wiggling WHILE IN THE RECEIVER'S HANDS. But when a QB actually flops the ball around the field like a hot potato, he gets a free pass? Maybe it's apples & oranges, I dunno. But I don't get a vote anyway, so...

It was an incomplete. They got it right

"Was his arm moving forward". What a lame rule by the NFL. This really needs to be re-looked at with intentions of *What can this rule do to the play in certain situations.

Who was his target? Was it really a fumble? Was it intentional grounding? No matter what, I believe the QB had a plan B when he knew his pass was not going to happen and his ass was going to be planted. *Move your arm forward so that they retain the ball because it can be ruled a incomplete pass.
What crap.

It was the correct call and I don't really think it was a very close call. When that happened in real time the first thing I said was "Nope, that's coming back, they are going to call that an incomplete forward pass." It looked pretty obvious to me. After the very first replay, the other 5 people I was watching the game with all thought that, absolutely no question, they are going to rule that an incomplete forward pass.

How many here think if it was Wilson it would've been a fumble? just asking

grizbob wrote:How many here think if it was Wilson it would've been a fumble? just asking

Not me. Sam Bradford and the Rams are hardly the darlings of the NFL. It was the correct call.

Pstark3 wrote:I thought that the ball came out just before his arm was moving forward and he pushed the ball forward... maybe it was just my homerism

No, you are right, I saw OUR defender hit Bradford in the chest, knocking his torso backwards and his arm extended foreward as a result, because IF that was indeed a foreward pass, who was his intended receiver?,, to me?, It was either a forced fumble, or intentional grounding.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts. I think 100% it was unquestionably a fumble and not even close. My father-in-law was watching as well and I immediately seeing it live (only watched the last 10 minutes of the game) said it was an incomplete and he disagreed. As soon as we saw the replay we knew I was right. Bradford was hit, arm was moving forward doesn't matter why or how. Ball was in control in his hand and went to the ground. incomplete. Refs treated it right let the players play through overturned on replay.

My take-away. With so many so convicted this was a bad call I will adjust my thinking on future disputed calls on the board....... I guess somewhere in the back of my mind I have always known this since my TEAMS always gets screwed by the refs.