Fumble return for td overturned

[Aristotle22]

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

 

[Will I]

Unfortunately, it was the "tuck" rule

 

[Seanhawk]

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.

 

[Aristotle22]

Thanks

 

[Pstark3]

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

 

[zhawk]

• 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!

 

[Will I]

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.

 

[Spounge84]

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.

 

[nsport]

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.

 

[twisted_steel2]

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.

 

[Kixkahn]

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.

 

[AF_Hawk]

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.

 

[Will I]

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

 

[themunn]

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

 

[HawkFreak]

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...

 

[Seanhawk]

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.

 

[HawkFreak]

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.

 

[themunn]

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)

 

[CANHawk]

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.

 

[Atradees]

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.