NFL rules question? 20 points for proving your answer

[tto827]

On the packers first touchdown:

Aaron Rodgers was ruled to not have possession of the ball, then the motion of his arm batted the ball forward. Shouldn't the ball be ruled dead as soon as it is recovered by Green Bay?

Read all of section 8 of the rulebook regarding passes, fumbles, etc. and didn't see anything about an unintentionally batted ball on a down besides 4th. If anyone can find the actual ruling,
I'll toss you 20 points.. Maybe more if I like you.

[InTheDrink]

Only difference between that and a muffed fumble recovery is that it didn't hit the ground first. Don't know of any precedent though.

[daneblazer]

Shouldn't the ball be ruled dead as soon as it is recovered by Green Bay?

No...it was Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay. Touchdown Packers

[lakerboy]

no because it was a fumble. he was not in passing motion when ball got loose. it was a live ball.

[seaborneq]

Defensive player caused a fumble before Rodgers' arm started coming forward. A fumble everyday of the week.

[Straight Cash]

I believe it's under illegal use of hands, there's a qualifier.

A player may not bat or punch:

(a) A loose ball (in field of play) toward his opponent’s goal line or in any direction in either end zone.

(b) A ball in player possession.

Note: If there is any question as to whether a defender is stripping or batting a ball in player possession, the official(s) will rule the action as a legal act (stripping the ball).

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands

[gryfyn1]

On the packers first touchdown:

Aaron Rodgers was ruled to not have possession of the ball, then the motion of his arm batted the ball forward. Shouldn't the ball be ruled dead as soon as it is recovered by Green Bay?

Read all of section 8 of the rulebook regarding passes, fumbles, etc. and didn't see anything about an unintentionally batted ball on a down besides 4th. If anyone can find the actual ruling,
I'll toss you 20 points.. Maybe more if I like you.

Im not sure not sure what rule you are looking for. A fumble can be recovered and advanced by a player from either except on 4th down or inside of two minutes

1. A fumble may be advanced by any player on either team regardless of whether recovered before or after ball hits the ground.
2. A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent’s end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.
3. On a play from scrimmage, if an offensive player fumbles anywhere on the field during fourth down, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If any player fumbles after the two-minute warning in a half, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If recovered by any other offensive player, the ball is dead at the spot of the fumble unless it is recovered behind the spot of the fumble. In that case, the ball is dead at the spot of recovery. Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time.

[tto827]

I'm looking for an inadvertent batting of the ball in the forward direction on a down besides 4th.

[playersonly69]

It was an obvious fumble. It was not a pass. The ball can be advanced since it wasn't 4th down and not inside of 2 minutes.




I guess what you are looking for is someone to saythat it wasn't a fumble

[tto827]

No. I agree 100% it was a fumble.

I'm questioning if the packers should be allowed to advance the ball upon recovery.

It was batted (granted inadvertently) forward by a Green Bay player. The fact that Aaron pushed the ball forward then his team recovered and advanced it is what I'm questioning.

Imagine this scenario:

There's a fumble, in the act of recovering it, a player knocks the ball forward towards a teammate, regardless of intent, it is not allowed, so I'm wondering why this situation is different?

Or maybe I'm wrong, and if it's an inadvertent bat, it's not a penalty... That's basically what I was looking for.

[d2bets]

No. I agree 100% it was a fumble.

I'm questioning if the packers should be allowed to advance the ball upon recovery.

It was batted (granted inadvertently) forward by a Green Bay player. The fact that Aaron pushed the ball forward then his team recovered and advanced it is what I'm questioning.

Imagine this scenario:

There's a fumble, in the act of recovering it, a player knocks the ball forward towards a teammate, regardless of intent, it is not allowed, so I'm wondering why this situation is different?

Or maybe I'm wrong, and if it's an inadvertent bat, it's not a penalty... That's basically what I was looking for.

I think it is allowed, as long as it's not 4th down and inside of 2 minutes. IMO this is a rule that needs to be changed. It's lucky enough to recover it, shouldn't get benefit of extra yards going forward. Should go back where it's fumbled. But that's not the rule now.

[slacker00]

Illegal Bat Article 8 A player may not bat or punch:
(a) a loose ball (in field of play) toward opponent’s goal line;
(b) a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in either end zone;
(c) a backward pass in flight may not be batted forward by an offensive player.
Exception: A forward pass in flight may be tipped, batted, or deflected in any direction by any eligible player at
any time.
Note: If a forward pass that is controlled by an airborne player prior to completing the catch is thrown forward, it
is an illegal bat. If it is caught by a teammate or intercepted by an opponent, the ball remains alive. If it is
not caught, the ball is dead when it hits the ground.
Penalty: For illegal batting or punching the ball: Loss of 10 yards. For enforcement, treat as a foul
during a backward pass or fumble (see 8-7-7).
I

I think you are right. The way the rule reads, Rodgers certainly batted the ball towards the opponent's end.

[d2bets]

I think you are right. The way the rule reads, Rodgers certainly batted the ball towards the opponent's end.

Didn't he bat it toward his own team's goal line? But why would a player want to be toward opponent's goal line? I don't get that rule. Never mind, I get it....

Also, what is a 'bat' or 'punch'. Is that defined somewhere? Obviously he didn't do it intentionally, just his arm was going forward so it naturally happened.

[slacker00]

Hold on, I found something contrary in the definitions section:

BAT OR PUNCH (g) A Bat or Punch is the intentional striking of the ball with hand, fist, elbow, or forearm. See 12-4-1.
P

So, the key word is "intention". If Rodgers striking of the ball was unintentional, it isn't a bat.

[d2bets]

But now I'm looking at the definition of a forward pass. Didn't the ball initially move forward after leaving his hands?

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 ne
arer the opponent’s goal line) after leaving the passe
r’s
hand(s);

[Kaabee]

perhaps it's not considered a fumble until the ball hits the ground.

[InTheDrink]

But now I'm looking at the definition of a forward pass. Didn't the ball initially move forward after leaving his hands?

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 ne
arer the opponent’s goal line) after leaving the passe
r’s
hand(s);

the hit came from behind so it could be argued and apparently is that the momentum of the hit pushed the ball forward

[Kaabee]

the more i think about it, i don't think it's a fumble until it hits the ground or someone besides rodgers gets it/touches it.

[d2bets]

the hit came from behind so it could be argued and apparently is that the momentum of the hit pushed the ball forward

But does it matter why. The rule only says that the ball moves forward after leaving the passer's hands. Seems to me that's exactly what happened. The rule doesn't say move forward after the QB loses grip. The ball was still and always in contact with his hand when the ball was propelled forward. By the letter of the rule, that should be a pass.

[slacker00]

On the packers first touchdown:

Aaron Rodgers was ruled to not have possession of the ball, then the motion of his arm batted the ball forward. Shouldn't the ball be ruled dead as soon as it is recovered by Green Bay?

Read all of section 8 of the rulebook regarding passes, fumbles, etc. and didn't see anything about an unintentionally batted ball on a down besides 4th. If anyone can find the actual ruling,
I'll toss you 20 points.. Maybe more if I like you.

There is no such thing as "unintentionally batted" by NFL definitions, bats are intentional by definition.

RULE 3, SECTION 2, ARTICLE 6
BAT OR PUNCH (g) A Bat or Punch is the intentional striking of the ball with hand, fist, elbow, or forearm. See 12-4-1.

[d2bets]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/green-bay-packers-score-flukish-td-referees-don-233830407--nfl.html

If youlook at the replay slowed down, the ball was still in contact with Rodgers hand and the ball went well forward. I still believe that is a pass by the rule, because the ball "initially moved forward after leaving the passer's hand". I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.

[slacker00]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...0407--nfl.html

If youlook at the replay slowed down, the ball was still in contact with Rodgers hand and the ball went well forward. I still believe that is a pass by the rule, because the ball "initially moved forward after leaving the passer's hand". I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.

I agree that the ball stays in contact with Rodgers' hand until it is flung forward.

But the finest details of the rules sometimes elude me. I still don't fully understand the tuck rule.

[d2bets]

If they want to be accurate the way they're calling it, the rule should say initially moved forward after leaving the passer's grip. Then this is a fumble. But as written, it is a forward pass. I believe they got it wrong. What a surprise.

[tto827]

I think it is allowed, as long as it's not 4th down and inside of 2 minutes. IMO this is a rule that needs to be changed. It's lucky enough to recover it, shouldn't get benefit of extra yards going forward. Should go back where it's fumbled. But that's not the rule now.

This is pretty much the answer I was looking for. I honestly thought there was some part of the rule that returned it to where it was recovered even on a down besides 4th but guess not.

[RudyRuetigger]

looks like a fumble and a recovery for td to me. im not sure what there is to argue. it doesnt look intentional, it was his forward throwing motion.

[InTheDrink]

roody relax and have a beer pal

roody it's five o'clock somewhere guey

[Albert Pujols]

Had Packers and still think it was a pass. His arm was going forward and that's what obviously caused it to go forward 8 yards. I think it's complete bullshit that all 22 guys stopped like it was a pass, and whoever picked it up was going to get a free TD. Just seems silly to not stop a play where the ball comes out of the QB's hand and goes forward, and every player on the field treats it like a forward pass. Before replay, that pass would have been called incomplete immediately 100 times out of 100, but now they error on the side of fumble and then go to replay to overturn. I can sort of see why in slow motion you can say it was a fumble, but the bottom line is that Rodger's throwing motion is what caused it to go forward so much. Just silly I think.

[slacker00]

Had Packers and still think it was a pass. His arm was going forward and that's what obviously caused it to go forward 8 yards. I think it's complete bullshit that all 22 guys stopped like it was a pass, and whoever picked it up was going to get a free TD. Just seems silly to not stop a play where the ball comes out of the QB's hand and goes forward, and every player on the field treats it like a forward pass. Before replay, that pass would have been called incomplete immediately 100 times out of 100, but now they error on the side of fumble and then go to replay to overturn. I can sort of see why in slow motion you can say it was a fumble, but the bottom line is that Rodger's throwing motion is what caused it to go forward so much. Just silly I think.

The refs made the right call. It took guts to not toot the whistle when no player on the field seemed to know what was going on. Play to the whistle or through the whistle depending on the coach. Some of the stuff players do in the NFL now days baffles me, such as leaving your feet as a ball carrier.

[RudyRuetigger]

roody relax and have a beer pal

roody it's five o'clock somewhere guey

On beer 3 pal.

just BC ball went forward doesn't mean pass. Just a dumb luck play but how many times have you heard...play til the whistle.

[slacker00]

On beer 3 pal.

just BC ball went forward doesn't mean pass. Just a dumb luck play but how many times have you heard...play til the whistle.

Our HS coach told us play through the whistle until they start throwing flags, then to the whistle.

[BriGuy]

I'm looking for an inadvertent batting of the ball in the forward direction on a down besides 4th.

You're employing a contradiction of terms. It was inadvertent and therefore it was not "batting" as the NFL defines the term. Oh sure, we can see he "batted" the ball with his hand, but since it was by accident, it is not considered "batting" as the rulebook defines the term.

[Seaweed]

Guys game is done move on

[tto827]

The refs made the right call. It took guts to not toot the whistle when no player on the field seemed to know what was going on. Play to the whistle or through the whistle depending on the coach. Some of the stuff players do in the NFL now days baffles me, such as leaving your feet as a ball carrier.

It's actually embarrassing. The dumb-ass on the browns who was standing half out of bounds when he fielded a kickoff at the 10.

They got it at the 40 still but c'mon, how do kick returners not know to not fukking touch the ball near the sidelines on a kickoff?

I couldn't believe there was no whistle either, but watching the replay EVERY ref on the field stayed in position and thought it was a live ball, as sickening as it was to watch as a bears fan, the refs handled the situation well.

[slacker00]

It's actually embarrassing. The dumb-ass on the browns who was standing half out of bounds when he fielded a kickoff at the 10.

They got it at the 40 still but c'mon, how do kick returners not know to not fukking touch the ball near the sidelines on a kickoff?

I couldn't believe there was no whistle either, but watching the replay EVERY ref on the field stayed in position and thought it was a live ball, as sickening as it was to watch as a bears fan, the refs handled the situation well.

Regarding the browns game, I didn't see it, but it's a good play to "sideline" a kickoff and get it at the 40 generally.