Photo of Overturned Forward Pass

[Diseqc]

Let's just call this what it was. The ACC was protecting one of their own. Nothi g more nothi g less. If another acc team was involved instead of gsu, the call would not have been over turned. At least that's my perspective, and I'm a fan of both teams

Let's call it what it was. The right ööööing call.

 

[beej67]

Let's just call this what it was. The ACC was protecting one of their own. Nothi g more nothi g less. If another acc team was involved instead of gsu, the call would not have been over turned. At least that's my perspective, and I'm a fan of both teams

If they were protecting one of their own it would have been called a fumble on the field and not reviewed at all, because that's how it's done in basically every other game.

 

[gsu_paintballer]

If they were protecting one of their own it would have been called a fumble on the field and not reviewed at all, because that's how it's done in basically every other game.

I really don't get why you guys are still discussing this, but the above post caught my eye.

Feel free to double check me, but I believe that I recall the rule book says that when the decision is in doubt, it is a forward pass. That is why it was called that way on the field. If they had called it a fumble when in doubt, that would be against the rule book.

Now, I'm not saying that's why we lost. We lost because we played like crap in the first half. If we don't lay down in the first half, the fumble probably doesn't matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[savbandjacket]

I really don't get why you guys are still discussing this, but the above post caught my eye.

Feel free to double check me, but I believe that I recall the rule book says that when the decision is in doubt, it is a forward pass. That is why it was called that way on the field. If they had called it a fumble when in doubt, that would be against the rule book.

Now, I'm not saying that's why we lost. We lost because we played like crap in the first half. If we don't lay down in the first half, the fumble probably doesn't matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My beef with this is that the referee called this as incomplete. He was completely out of position to make any call, but did anyways. From where he was standing, everything was "in doubt." He should have been the last on the field to blow the play dead because he was behind the play and in the middle of the field.

As soon as he blew the whistle and started to run in and point at the ground, I said how the hell did he see anything from where he was standing.

 

[savbandjacket]

Oh.....and if we don't play like crap in the second half, the fumble doesn't matter.

The game was not a situation where the only reason Southern lost is because Southern played like crap in the first half.

 

[WracerX]

Yeah, had we not laid down in the 3rd quarter, that play wouldn't have mattered either.

 

[gsu_paintballer]

Oh.....and if we don't play like crap in the second half, the fumble doesn't matter.

The game was not a situation where the only reason Southern lost is because Southern played like crap in the first half.

If you're insinuating that I'm not giving credit to GT, then I should have been more clear. GT definitely did their part when they needed to.

Yeah, had we not laid down in the 3rd quarter, that play wouldn't have mattered either.

My point is that, while the call came a crucial time, anyone is hard pressed to say the outcome should have been different. Can't lay an egg for a half and then blame it on one call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[savbandjacket]

I misunderstood you then. My apologies.

 

[Dhatura]

I really don't get why you guys are still discussing this, but the above post caught my eye.

Feel free to double check me, but I believe that I recall the rule book says that when the decision is in doubt, it is a forward pass. That is why it was called that way on the field. If they had called it a fumble when in doubt, that would be against the rule book.

Now, I'm not saying that's why we lost. We lost because we played like crap in the first half. If we don't lay down in the first half, the fumble probably doesn't matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am sure you are right about the rule when in doubt, but this is one of the many football rules that doesn't seem to make sense, if it is so (I am not arguing for or against what happened Saturday...).

Why not let the play go on, and fix it afterwards? There have been several times that I have seen a team have a fumble recovery or a touchdown taken back by a referee blowing the play dead too early. The rule would be much better if play would be allowed to continue.

 

[andrew]

I am sure you are right about the rule when in doubt, but this is one of the many football rules that doesn't seem to make sense, if it is so (I am not arguing for or against what happened Saturday...).

Why not let the play go on, and fix it afterwards? There have been several times that I have seen a team have a fumble recovery or a touchdown taken back by a referee blowing the play dead too early. The rule would be much better if play would be allowed to continue.

Because then you can easily end up with a call that the ref felt was wrong at the time and still feels is wrong when looking at the replay, but is unable to correct due to the "indisputable evidence" standard.

 

[JelloYacketDeleted062020]

You know guys, if this situation were reversed, you would absolutely be blowing a gasket. It is over and done, but the "indisputable evidence" needed to overturn the call on the field is in question here. I'm sure it will be closely reviewed by the ACC office.

And so would you. We're all hypocrites, congratulations.

 

[TechSBP]

I am sure you are right about the rule when in doubt, but this is one of the many football rules that doesn't seem to make sense, if it is so (I am not arguing for or against what happened Saturday...).

Why not let the play go on, and fix it afterwards? There have been several times that I have seen a team have a fumble recovery or a touchdown taken back by a referee blowing the play dead too early. The rule would be much better if play would be allowed to continue.

You're wrong. In this type of situation the assumption is latteral. In most other situations the assumption is forward. It has a lot to do with a) the QB trying to spot someone downfield; b) he is not pitching and is using traditional throwing motion. When A or B are satisfied, the assumption is forward pass. This would cover, for instance, a shuttle pass or jump pass (because that's not exactly an elegant throwing motion either).

In this case, neither a or b were satisfied. It was a pitch, and the QB wasn't looking downfield. So in that case, officials assume latteral, unless it appears to be forward. To make this call correctly, if you are the line judge, that's the guy you see on the sideline, you have to first determine whether this is a run or pass. It is clearly a run. BUT, at the start of the play he starts moving to the defensive side of the field, as if its pass. He quickly corrects this, but not quickly enough to have a good angle on the play.

In this situation, he has a few responsibilites: was it a pass made beyond the line of scrimmage? was it a latteral? is everyone inbounds? etc.

He was out of position for an option latteral. What he should have done is read run, and gotten in position to follow the play and watch for whether the pitch is legal (can't be forward if past line of scrimmage), and if behind the line whether it is latteral or forward. BECAUSE FUMBLES. He's also watching whether everyone stays inbounds and you can do that better when you aren't running backwards or having to turn around. If you look at the way his body turned downfield you can tel lhe was out of position, because if the play had gone to the endzone, he would have had to turn around, and you don't see as much when you do that.

In any event, he was out of position. And then he blew the call, largely as a result.

Keep in mind when a ref is reviewing in the both, an official who is out of position is going to get less deference. When the reviewing official in the booth can tell the ref on the field was out of position and didn't know what hte hell he was doing, I doubt any seasoned ref who is in the booth, is going to think very much of the call. In this case, however, it seemed pretty clear that it was a lateral because the center of the ball seemed about the same.

Applying hte correct presumption for a lateral in the backfield (the presumption is different for latteral beyond the line of scrimmage), on replay that showed the ball appeared to be in the same place, would require reversal.

While TV announcers rif on "clear and indisputable evidence," a replay official has to view that within the lense of the correct presumption. The on-field official might not have used the correct presumption. But the replay official did, and would not have known, or cared, whether the on-field official did use the correct presumption.

Here is what the replay official would have thought: is there clear video evidence that this is a backward pass, given that if it is close, in this situation, I must assume it is a latteral.

 

[wesleyd21]

Jesus...can't believe this thread has so many pages. There were several instances of GSU pass interference (not looking back for the ball) and you don't hear us beeyotching about it.

I guess it's because we won.

 

[Dhatura]

You're wrong. In this type of situation the assumption is latteral. In most other situations the assumption is forward. It has a lot to do with a) the QB trying to spot someone downfield; b) he is not pitching and is using traditional throwing motion. When A or B are satisfied, the assumption is forward pass. This would cover, for instance, a shuttle pass or jump pass (because that's not exactly an elegant throwing motion either).

In this case, neither a or b were satisfied. It was a pitch, and the QB wasn't looking downfield. So in that case, officials assume latteral, unless it appears to be forward. To make this call correctly, if you are the line judge, that's the guy you see on the sideline, you have to first determine whether this is a run or pass. It is clearly a run. BUT, at the start of the play he starts moving to the defensive side of the field, as if its pass. He quickly corrects this, but not quickly enough to have a good angle on the play.

In this situation, he has a few responsibilites: was it a pass made beyond the line of scrimmage? was it a latteral? is everyone inbounds? etc.

He was out of position for an option latteral. What he should have done is read run, and gotten in position to follow the play and watch for whether the pitch is legal (can't be forward if past line of scrimmage), and if behind the line whether it is latteral or forward. BECAUSE FUMBLES. He's also watching whether everyone stays inbounds and you can do that better when you aren't running backwards or having to turn around. If you look at the way his body turned downfield you can tel lhe was out of position, because if the play had gone to the endzone, he would have had to turn around, and you don't see as much when you do that.

In any event, he was out of position. And then he blew the call, largely as a result.

Keep in mind when a ref is reviewing in the both, an official who is out of position is going to get less deference. When the reviewing official in the booth can tell the ref on the field was out of position and didn't know what hte hell he was doing, I doubt any seasoned ref who is in the booth, is going to think very much of the call. In this case, however, it seemed pretty clear that it was a lateral because the center of the ball seemed about the same.

Applying hte correct presumption for a lateral in the backfield (the presumption is different for latteral beyond the line of scrimmage), on replay that showed the ball appeared to be in the same place, would require reversal.

While TV announcers rif on "clear and indisputable evidence," a replay official has to view that within the lense of the correct presumption. The on-field official might not have used the correct presumption. But the replay official did, and would not have known, or cared, whether the on-field official did use the correct presumption.

Here is what the replay official would have thought: is there clear video evidence that this is a backward pass, given that if it is close, in this situation, I must assume it is a latteral.

I was referring to what Paintballer said about what he felt the refs should assume. I felt the idea of blowing a play dead because of assumption is a flaw in the rule, if that is the way the rule is to be interpreted.

Let's take a look at this example:

1. The play is the same as it occurred Saturday, with the exception that the play was blown dead prior to Tech recovering the ball. I feel that all plays should be allowed to finish completely, then, as all turnovers, or supposed turnovers, should automatically be reviewed. Unfortunately, since the play was blown dead prior to a team gaining possesion of the ball, the ball goes back to the offense. In my opinion, that is an unfair rule, which defies the idea of a rule.

I do, however, agree with your post!

 

[GoGATech]

What he should have done is read run, and gotten in position to follow the play and watch for whether the pitch is legal (can't be forward if past line of scrimmage)

I agree with your whole post, but this is the part that gets me more than anything. How often do you see this go in favor of an offense when a fumble occurs and it is called an incomplete pass, and how many times do you see a pitch made past the line of scrimmage that may be forward but doesn't get called back due to illegal forward pass?

My thoughts on it are this: the rule should be changed to state that any pitch, toss, etc. that occurs behind the line of scrimmage and touches the ground (and is not thrown overhand as a pass) is a live ball as if a fumble, whether the pitch, toss, etc. was forward or not. And if the runner is past the line of scrimmage, the pitch then must be backwards (and a live ball fumble situation still will occur if it is mishandled) or there is penalty for illegal forward pass.

 

[ramblinwreck24]

I really don't get why you guys are still discussing this, but the above post caught my eye.

Feel free to double check me, but I believe that I recall the rule book says that when the decision is in doubt, it is a forward pass. That is why it was called that way on the field. If they had called it a fumble when in doubt, that would be against the rule book.

Now, I'm not saying that's why we lost. We lost because we played like crap in the first half. If we don't lay down in the first half, the fumble probably doesn't matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you don't lay down in first half, Tech prob plays totally different in the second half too.

 

[GoldZ]

I agree with your whole post, but this is the part that gets me more than anything. How often do you see this go in favor of an offense when a fumble occurs and it is called an incomplete pass, and how many times do you see a pitch made past the line of scrimmage that may be forward but doesn't get called back due to illegal forward pass?

My thoughts on it are this: the rule should be changed to state that any pitch, toss, etc. that occurs behind the line of scrimmage and touches the ground (and is not thrown overhand as a pass) is a live ball as if a fumble, whether the pitch, toss, etc. was forward or not. And if the runner is past the line of scrimmage, the pitch then must be backwards (and a live ball fumble situation still will occur if it is mishandled) or there is penalty for illegal forward pass.

+1

 

[Flywheel]

I agree with your whole post, but this is the part that gets me more than anything. How often do you see this go in favor of an offense when a fumble occurs and it is called an incomplete pass, and how many times do you see a pitch made past the line of scrimmage that may be forward but doesn't get called back due to illegal forward pass?

My thoughts on it are this: the rule should be changed to state that any pitch, toss, etc. that occurs behind the line of scrimmage and touches the ground (and is not thrown overhand as a pass) is a live ball as if a fumble, whether the pitch, toss, etc. was forward or not. And if the runner is past the line of scrimmage, the pitch then must be backwards (and a live ball fumble situation still will occur if it is mishandled) or there is penalty for illegal forward pass.

This makes sense. Hence it will never happen. Time to jack around with kickoff rules again. MOAR TOUCHBAX!!!

 

[staggerwing]

Wow, GT (subjectively) got the benefit of a call for the first time since Jasper Sanks. Cry me a ööööing river, Southern.

 

[1NYJacket]

It was a lateral. There was an offensive tackle 6 yards downfield when the pitch was made.