Rules Clarification on 4th down fumbles re: Arkansas last night and UF-LSU '10

[GatorInGeorgia]

Ref swallowed his whistle. Should have been blown dead.

Really? Do tell. I can't wait to hear your explanation to support your statement.

 

[Durty South Swamp]

This threads starting to get good...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deuce]

Really? Do tell. I can't wait to hear your explanation to support your statement.

What game are you talking about?

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

What game are you talking about?

I'm talking about Arkansas/Ole Miss last night. I assumed you were referring to that game, my bad if you weren't. If your statement was referring to Florida/LSU in 2010 then I agree with you that it should have been blown dead.

 

[Ancient Reptile]

It doesn't matter whether they looked or not. It has no bearing on whether it's a lateral, if it's legal, etc.



I know that. I actually pointed that out earlier in this thread.

Never said looking made a difference. One post seemed to perhaps imply a distinction. Sorry I posted on the forward/backward LSU question before I read your post.

 

[ThreatMatrix]

Before this is thread is over I expect GiG in a duel to the death at dawn with somebody. He's just running around slapping everybody in the face with his gauntlet.

 

[Zambo]

As I've already pointed out (and unfortuately you're too dense to understand) the easiet way to determine the difference between a lateral (whether it hits the ground or not) and a fumble is the intent of the ballcarrier. If the ballcarrier VOLUNTARILY releases control of the ball in a lateral or backward manner in the act of passing or pitching the ball to another player on the field, then it's a lateral, REGARDLESS of whether the ball hits the ground. A fumble occurs by the involuntary action of losing control of the ball by dropping it during an exchange, dropping it when getting hit by another player, etc. Do you understand that concept? I take it that you don't watch much football...this is a pretty easy concept to pick up on after seeing a couple of games on TV.

Well, you're wrong...and an idiot to boot!

Georgia, please don't ever leave this message board. Your existence is a source of nonstop amusement to me.

Let me walk you through this REAL SLOW so you can understand the problem here. You just claimed, as I knew you would, that the INTENT is the determiner of whether a ball that hits the ground is a lateral or a fumble. This determination of INTENT, by definition, is a judgment call by the referee, much like the judgment of whether a receiver was "in the area" when determining intentional grounding. Now, if I haven't lost you....

You would agree that there is a RULE that says the offense cannot advance a fumble on a 4th down scrimmage play. Hopefully you are knowledgable enough to understand not only that the rule exists, but why the rule exists. It is obviously to prevent the offensive player who is about to be tackled short of the line to gain from INTENTIONALLY fumbling the ball so that a teammate can advance it. Oooh, there is that word intent again....see it? Its right up there ^^^ :D

So the rulebook says that an intentional release of the ball by the ballcarrier on 4th down will result in the ball being brought back to the spot of the fumble if it is advanced by the offense. DO YOU REALLY DISAGREE WITH EITHER THE WORDING OR THE INTENT OF THIS RULE?

So I ask you now that we've gotten all the BS fluff out of the way about what a fumble is, what a lateral is, how you determine the difference, etc, how would you deconflict the two seemingly opposing rules? There is certainly some wiggle room there, and thus the ensuing discussion on this and other message boards. One rule says you can't intentionally release the ball onto the ground on 4th down and advance it, but the other rule you claim says you can advance a lateral, which according to you is the intentional release of the ball to another player. If YOU were the ref on the Arky play in question, would you opine that the blind, over the head hail mary chuck back that the kid did was an intentional pitch to another player, as in your earlier example, or was it a blind release of the ball for no other reason than to not be tackled prior to achieving the line to gain?

I would rule its the latter, but there is that pesky judgment thing again. Just dying right now waiting to hear your thoughts on the matter. Now back to welding a new winch on my car trailer. Oh and while you're reconciling things here, also answer me this: If your orders were that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, why would it be necessary to transfer Pvt Santiago off the island?

 

[Durty South Swamp]

zambo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Concrete Helmet]

 

[Swamp Donkey]

If your orders were that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, why would it be necessary to transfer Pvt Santiago off the island?

I think you figured it out.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

Georgia, please don't ever leave this message board. Your existence is a source of nonstop amusement to me.

Let me walk you through this REAL SLOW so you can understand the problem here. You just claimed, as I knew you would, that the INTENT is the determiner of whether a ball that hits the ground is a lateral or a fumble. This determination of INTENT, by definition, is a judgment call by the referee, much like the judgment of whether a receiver was "in the area" when determining intentional grounding. Now, if I haven't lost you....

You would agree that there is a RULE that says the offense cannot advance a fumble on a 4th down scrimmage play. Hopefully you are knowledgable enough to understand not only that the rule exists, but why the rule exists. It is obviously to prevent the offensive player who is about to be tackled short of the line to gain from INTENTIONALLY fumbling the ball so that a teammate can advance it. Oooh, there is that word intent again....see it? Its right up there ^^^ :D

??? Seriously, are you this ****ing stupid??? Your post is complete nonsense. You are left to try and pick out one part of my post to rip, because I basically destroyed you for your previous comments and you can't even make that work for you. You're trying to take a rule about FUMBLING on 4th down and applying that rule to the act of lateraling the ball. A little further down in this post, you change the rule from intentionally fumbling the ball to INTENTIONALLY RELEASING THE BALL and those are two different things. Your stupidity is causing you to conflate matters. Unfortnuately for you, logic in this universe does not work that way. A lateral, by definition, has to be throwing the ball either be parallel to or away from the opponent's goal line. A fumble does not and there is where your pathetic argument above falls apart. As I stated on page 3, # 34 of this post a fumble and lateral are defined as follows: A fumble is defined as any act other than passing, kicking, punting or successful handing that results in loss of player possession. A lateral, technically called a backward pass, occurs when the ball carrier thows the football to a teammate in a direction parallel to or away from an opponent's goal line.

So the rulebook says that an intentional release of the ball by the ballcarrier on 4th down will result in the ball being brought back to the spot of the fumble if it is advanced by the offense. DO YOU REALLY DISAGREE WITH EITHER THE WORDING OR THE INTENT OF THIS RULE?

The rulebook doesn't say that. You acknowledged as much in the 3rd paragraph of your post where you said the ball carrier can't gain from INTENTIONALLY fumbling (I bolded the word fumbling for you where you used it). The rule says that intentionally FUMBLING the ball on 4th down results in the ball being brought back to the spot of the fumble. However, you need to differentiate between a FUMBLE and a LATERAL before determining which rule to apply, as I already stated in my post above. A lateral is the parallel or backward throwing of the football. It's technically not even called a lateral in the rulebook, it's called a backward pass. Your comment shows just how clueless you are. Are you trying to tell me that it is illegal for a ball carrier on 4th down to throw the ball backward before he is brought down in an attempt to keep a play alive??? Ball carriers INTENTIONALLY RELEASE THE BALL IN A LATERAL OR BACKWARD DIRECTION or, for lack of a better term, lateral the ball backward on 4th down to try and keep a play alive almost every weekend in a football game. You're a ****ing moron.

So I ask you now that we've gotten all the BS fluff out of the way about what a fumble is, what a lateral is, how you determine the difference, etc, how would you deconflict the two seemingly opposing rules? There is certainly some wiggle room there, and thus the ensuing discussion on this and other message boards. One rule says you can't intentionally release the ball onto the ground on 4th down and advance it, but the other rule you claim says you can advance a lateral, which according to you is the intentional release of the ball to another player. If YOU were the ref on the Arky play in question, would you opine that the blind, over the head hail mary chuck back that the kid did was an intentional pitch to another player, as in your earlier example, or was it a blind release of the ball for no other reason than to not be tackled prior to achieving the line to gain?

I would rule its the latter, but there is that pesky judgment thing again. Just dying right now waiting to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Well, I've already defined the difference between a fumble and a lateral/backward pass multiple time in this thread, but I know you are really slow mentally so let me try again. For the umpteenth time, a fumble is any act other than PASSING, kicking, punting or successful handing that results in loss of player possession. A lateral, technically called a backward pass occurs when the ball carrier throws the football to a teammate in a direction parallel to or away from an opponent's goal line (YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ARKANSAS PLAYER DID LAST NIGHT???). Good luck with that trailer winch thing. Hopefully you're more skilled at that than at logic and debate as your logic and debate skills are on par with a 4 year old. And God help the unlucky souls that end up on the road behind you as you tow whatever it is you tow on your trailer; if you're as clueless on attaching a trailer as you are on football, I expect your trailer will break free from your vehicle. You're a complete, utter, clueless dumbass!

 

[Zambo]

Well, I've already defined the difference between a fumble and a lateral/backward pass multiple time in this thread, but I know you are really slow mentally so let me try again. For the umpteenth time, a fumble is any act other than PASSING, kicking, punting or successful handing that results in loss of player possession. A lateral, technically called a backward pass occurs when the ball carrier throws the football to a teammate in a direction parallel to or away from an opponent's goal line (YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ARKANSAS PLAYER DID LAST NIGHT???). Good luck with that trailer winch thing. Hopefully you're more skilled at that than at logic and debate as your logic and debate skills are on par with a 4 year old. And God help the unlucky souls that end up on the road behind you as you tow whatever it is you tow on your trailer. You're a complete, utter, clueless dumbass!

You are damn near too stupid to insult. If the point here kicked in your door, jumped on your bed, sat on your face and started to wiggle you still wouldn't see it.

I will try one more time but it almost as impossible as eating a bowling ball. Everyone knows what a fumble is. Everyone knows what a lateral is. The rules say that a fumble cannot be advanced on 4th down. The REASON for this is to prevent intentionally fumbling the ball when about to get tackled. Do you or do you not understand the points so far? If so, (something I find to be pretty doubtful), do you disagree this is the rule and that this is why the rule exists?

NOW, if the point is to prevent a player from intentionally fumbling the ball prior to being tackled, how to you reconcile that with a player who intentionally laterals the ball to NO ONE?

Before you go off on another one of your retarded rants about laterals being legal, let me clue you in on something. Everyone here knows that laterals are legal. My f'n dog knows that laterals are legal. No one is disputing that. IT IS NOT THE QUESTION.

The question is this: HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN AN INTENTIONAL FUMBLE AND A PLAYER WHO BLINDLY "LATERALS" THE BALL TO NOBODY? Get it yet, you oblivious buffoon? Intentionally fumbling the ball results in the ball being returned to the spot but intentionally lateraling it to nobody is legal?

Let me offer you once again something I like to call context (in Georgia y'all probably call it other stuff that sometimes matters.) A QB is about to be sacked, but rather than take the loss he blindly chucks the ball to nobody. There is a penalty for this intentional act...its called grounding. Now, if I haven't lost you and your tiny walnut brain yet, the difference between an incomplete pass and grounding is that there was no realistic chance of completing the throw to an eligible receiver. The ref has to make a JUDGMENT CALL.

Now, stay with me because I know this is a lot to digest, but that same JUDGMENT CALL has to be made when a runner releases a ball prior to going down. Did he fumble it, or did he lateral it? In order to answer that all important question, you have to define the act of each. Now clearly, any time a runner fumbles a ball on 4th down and his teammate recovers it and runs farther downfield the runner could claim that he was trying to "lateral" it, thereby making the advancement legal. Clearly, in order to prevent this situation, if a lateral that hits the ground is ok to be advanced (even on 4th down) there has to be a cutoff point between what is an unsuccessful lateral attempt and simply a deliberate fumble. THIS IS THE POINT YOU SIMPLY GLOSS OVER WITH EACH OF YOUR RETARDED POSTS. How do you differentiate between deliberately fumbling the ball and just blindly chucking it backwards and calling it a lateral?

Now, I could sort of see the point if the ball never touched the ground. No one here is arguing that someone shouldn't be able to lateral the ball on a last ditch play. No one is even arguing that if you attempted to lateral the ball to a guy who is right there in your vision and it simply comes up short and bounces one time should be illegal. Anyone can understand an honest attempt to get a specific teammate the ball. What remains unclear, and what you have failed to show in any rulebook (wikipedia isn't the rulebook btw counselor), is where the cutoff is between an attempted lateral and just blindly chucking the ball away and having it hit the ground (just like a fumble) and having your teammate scoop it up out of sheer luck and advance it. I can't imagine how a judgment call similar to the one made which determines grounding vs an incomplete pass could be applied to that play and still fit the definition of a lateral vice an intentional fumble.

Before I go, let me just add holy mother of Christ are you freaking dense! And BTW, the handmade, welded and fabricated (by me) truck and trailer I have has won the Mexican 1000 so yeah I'm pretty sure it'll stay together. I'm pretty sure if you even tried to put a sticker on that truck it would fall off in the first mile.

Your turn bro. Don't let me down, I'm counting on you.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

Never said looking made a difference. One post seemed to perhaps imply a distinction.

Fair enough, I misunderstood what you were getting at. My bad.

 

[GatorInGeorgia]

You are damn near too stupid to insult. If the point here kicked in your door, jumped on your bed, sat on your face and started to wiggle you still wouldn't see it.

I will try one more time but it almost as impossible as eating a bowling ball. Everyone knows what a fumble is. Everyone knows what a lateral is. The rules say that a fumble cannot be advanced on 4th down. The REASON for this is to prevent intentionally fumbling the ball when about to get tackled. Do you or do you not understand the points so far? If so, (something I find to be pretty doubtful), do you disagree this is the rule and that this is why the rule exists?

NOW, if the point is to prevent a player from intentionally fumbling the ball prior to being tackled, how to you reconcile that with a player who intentionally laterals the ball to NO ONE?

Before you go off on another one of your retarded rants about laterals being legal, let me clue you in on something. Everyone here knows that laterals are legal. My f'n dog knows that laterals are legal. No one is disputing that. IT IS NOT THE QUESTION.

The question is this: HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN AN INTENTIONAL FUMBLE AND A PLAYER WHO BLINDLY "LATERALS" THE BALL TO NOBODY?

Your original issue with me was what is the difference between a lateral that hits the ground and a fumble. Your post that states that is on page 3, # 36. After I demolished your stupidity with logic and accuracy, you now want to change the question to the difference between an intentional fumble a blind lateral to nobody. There is no rule that says the ball can't be lateraled to NOBODY but if they ever change this rule then you may have a point at that time. As it stands, there is no need to differentiate whether it's to somebody or nobody. Also, the fact that his teammate recovered the lateral first goes against your logic-a SOMEBODY on Arkansas recovered the backward pass. That's the best you can do since I handed you your ass several times in this thread already. Go figure. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised based on who I am dealing with.

Let me offer you once again something I like to call context. A QB is about to be sacked, but rather than take the loss he blindly chucks the ball to nobody. There is a penalty for this intentional act...its called grounding. Now, if I haven't lost you and your tiny walnut brain yet, the difference between an incomplete pass and grounding is that there was no realistic chance of completing the throw to an eligible receiver. The ref has to make a JUDGMENT CALL.

This thread deals with laterals and fumbles. Bringing up a forward pass that turns out to be intentional grounding does nothing to support any of your stupid points nor does it do anyting to undermine anything I have stated in this thread (which, by the way, has been 100% accurate). It's just more stupidity from you because you haven't come with anything at all of value in this thread.

Now, stay with me because I know this is a lot to digest, but that same JUDGMENT CALL has to be made when a runner releases a ball prior to going down. Did he fumble it, or did he lateral it?

So we're now back on fumble vs. lateral? I'll adress that at the bottom.

In order to answer that all important question, you have to define the act of each. Now clearly, any time a runner fumbles a ball on 4th down and his teammate recovers it and runs farther downfield the runner could claim that he was trying to "lateral" it, thereby making the advancement legal. Clearly, in order to prevent this situation, if a lateral that hits the ground is ok to be advanced (even on 4th down) there has to be a cutoff point between what is an unsuccessful lateral attempt and simply a deliberate fumble. THIS IS THE POINT YOU SIMPLY GLOSS OVER WITH EACH OF YOUR RETARDED POSTS. How do you differentiate between deliberately fumbling the ball and just blindly chucking it backwards and calling it a lateral?

Or are we back on the act of deliberately fumbling vs. lateraling? You really need to make up your mind. I'll address this at the bottom, also, despite the fact that the rules are clearly defined.

Now, I could sort of see the point if the ball never touched the ground. No one here is arguing that someone shouldn't be able to lateral the ball on a last ditch play. No one is even arguing that if you attempted to lateral the ball to a guy who is right there in your vision and it simply comes up short and bounces one time should be illegal.

So it was a lateral and you agree with me. Great, I just wish you would make up your mind so we quit wasting time.

Anyone can understand an honest attempt to get a specific teammate the ball. What remains unclear, and what you have failed to show in any rulebook (wikipedia isn't the rulebook btw counselor), is where the cutoff is between an attempted lateral and just blindly chucking the ball away and having it hit the ground

There isn't a difference. That's the rule, whether you like it or not. The more you run off at the mouth, the more twisted you get in your own BS, meanwhile agreeing with me without being willing to admit it.

I can't imagine how a judgment call similar to the one made which determines grounding vs an incomplete pass could be applied to that play and still fit the definition of a lateral vice an intentional fumble.

A big part of your problem is you keep trying to compare different, unrelated scenarios to the issue of a backward pass vs. a fumble. Intentional grounding vs an incomplete pass has no bearing on this. Nor does your fallacy of trying to compare a intentional fumble on 4th down to a backward pass/lateral. If you were trying to compare a fumble on 4th down to a fumble on downs 1-3 that would be logical as would comparing an intentional fumble to an accidental fumble on the same down. Comparing an intentional fumble on 4th down to a backward pass/lateral is just plain stupid, though.

Before I go, let me just add holy mother of Christ are you freaking dense!

Your turn bro. Don't let me down, I'm counting on you.

So for the points I said I would address at the bottom here goes. An intentional fumble is a fumble that TRAVELS FORWARD. When that happens, the player gets hit with an ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS PENALTY. If you listen carefully to the refs when this happens during a TV game, you will hear them say illegal forward pass and then assess the correct penalty. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PENALY FOR AN INTENTIONAL FUMBLE IF THE BALL IS FUMBLED BACKWARD. If the ball goes backwards, IT'S A LIVE BALL THAT THE DEFENSE CAN ALWAYS RECOVER AND ADVANCE. What the offense can do in that situation is dependent upon a variety of different factors, including whether it's a pro game or college game.

Put another way, and to answer the new question you posted above about how do you differentiate between an intentional fumble and a "blind" lateral, THE ANSWER IS REALLY EASY...THE INTENTIONAL FUMBLE IS THE PLAY WHERE YOU SEE THE BALL TRAVELING FORWARD AND THE "BLIND" LATERAL IS THE PLAY WHERE YOU SEE THE BALL TRAVELING BACKWARD!!! IT'S REALLY PRETTY SIMPLE ONCE YOU STOP TROLLING AND PAY A LITTLE BIT OF ATTENTION.

GOT IT NOW??? You are trying to compare apples and oranges and bring in all these different "what if's", fourth down fumbles, intentional fumbles, etc., etc., etc. that don't apply. The bottom line is that what the Arkansas player did is defined as a backward pass with the ball hitting the ground, it was eligible to be picked up and that's what happened. It's funny that there hasn't been so much of a peep out of Ole Miss protesting the bad call nor has there been any press conference that I am aware of held by the SEC to castigate the officials involved in that game for making a bad call BECAUSE THE RULES ARE CLEAR AND THEY MADE THE CORRECT CALL...yet you want to sit here and scream bloody murder when it's obvious to all intelligent football fans THAT YOU ARE WRONG! You keep chaninging your arguments and points each time I prove you wrong. What you come up with as a retort is anyone's guess, but I'm sure it will be more of the same BS. As far as winning the Mexican 1000, good for you. All that sand that has gotten in your brain through your ears is a likely explanation for your ridiculous responses. Keep up the good work welding those trailers, sport. Oh, and maybe you want to stick with following soccer. I know that is the sport of choice in Mexico and you know so little about American football. Maybe that is the best way to solve your competency problem.

 

[NVGator]

 

[Zambo]

If the ball goes backwards, IT'S A LIVE BALL THAT THE DEFENSE CAN ALWAYS RECOVER AND ADVANCE.

I'll just skip the pleasantries and go right to this statement. The above, not only posted by you but also all caps. is simply not true. If a runner is moving forward on 4th down and gets creamed by a defended who knocks the ball loose and it goes backwards (the pure definition of a fumble I would hope you agree), it cannot be picked up and advanced by anyone other than the fumbler.

Now lets forget about cut and dried examples like the one above. What if its 4th down and the QB goes to throw the ball and it slips out of his hand as its going backwards? I'm sure you'd agree that is also a fumble, not a backwards pass, even though it wasn't caused by the other team. The rulebook goes into great detail about the impetus of the ball, meaning who caused the ball to move in a certain direction. Of course in this example the QB himself was the impetus, not the other team, yet its still a fumble and can't be picked up and advanced by a teammate.

What if a guy is starting to make a backward pass and in the act of the backward pass he is hit and the ball goes sailing in a completely different direction? Fumble or backward pass? If you can't see the gray area here I can't help you.

If you open the rulebook you see that it goes into great detail to define almost all possibilities of gaining or losing possession of the ball and contains many specific example of each thing. Here is the one glaring exception that I can find after doing quite a bit of digging thru the CFB rule book: A "loose ball" is a live ball that is on the ground due to a fumble or an incomplete backward pass (or during certain kicks which I won't belabor). The two are treated exactly the same in all instances except for a 4th down run ( and by run I mean when a runner is in possession of the ball, which can occur after completion of a forward pass), wherein the rule exception comes into play that says only the fumbler can advance a fumble. It is simply my opinion that since a backward pass that hits the ground and a fumble are both considered a "loose ball" and treated the exact same way in almost every instance, they neglected to spend much time defining the difference between a fumble and a backward pass in terms of intent. They go into great deal of specifics about what exactly defines a forward pass vs a fumble when the QB gets hit while throwing and a hundred other things, but they leave a lot of gray area in this regard.

My opinion of why it isn't spelled out more exactly is simply that they didn't imagine some of the plays and controversies that would eventually come about. An almost perfect example of what I'm talking about is the fumble rule itself, brought about by the infamous Holy Roller play when the Raiders beat the Chargers (ironically right here in San Diego where I type this). The fumble rule didn't exist up until then but the rule was subsequently changed to prevent what most would conclude is a bogus way to advance the ball.

In response to the Holy Roller, the league passed new rules in the off-season, restricting fumble recoveries by the offense. If a player fumbles after the two-minute warning in a half, or on fourth down at any time during the game, only the fumbling player can recover and advance the ball. If that player's teammate recovers the ball during those situations, it is placed back at the spot of the fumble, unless it was a recovery for a loss, in which case the ball is dead and placed at the point of recovery.

As the years go by and games are played, the rules change to keep the game within the spirit of competition. No one knows what weird thing will happen tomorrow or next year to spurn another rule change but I guarantee it will happen.

As it stands now, the referee makes a determination if a loose ball is the result of what he considers a fumble, or whether it is a backward pass that hits the ground. In the case of the former, it can't be advanced. There is no rule saying that a backward pass can't be advanced. For the final and penultimate time, the thing that is lacking in the rulebook, and this is my opinion, is clear guidance and verbiage which differentiates the two. The only reason I can think of that they wouldn't need this guidance is if they believed that intentionally fumbling the ball on 4th down is no big deal as long as the initial impetus is backward, which I simply don't buy. I think the clear intent of the rules of the game are to prevent plays like the Holy Roller where guys intentionally go from making actual football plays to generating chaos as a last ditch effort to avoid a loss.

As a post script to this final chapter, I found it interesting that the rule book says that any pass that goes from the point of release to a point farther away from the goal line is a backward pass, and that any other pass is a forward pass. Further it states that if its too close to call then it shall be considered a forward pass. Interesting, considering the result of the first LSU fake FG against us. I don't know how anybody could look at that and say it definitely went backward.

 

[NavetG8r]

That's enough. You guys are giving me a headache and the day's barely started yet.