JT's Fumble late in 4th Qtr vs. UGA

[Bruce Wayne]

or if you have small hands or the ball is wet or your hand is sweaty, or....

When I saw the play, it looked like he intentionally stopped his forward motion, as in a typical pump fake, and ball flew out. That's a fumble. The replay official could have seen the same thing and without any question in his mind.

Look, we got a huge break in the Ga So game and we got the opposite here. Both calls were judgements made by replay officials. Neither replay official has been officially rebuked by the league.

Wait, now you think we got a break in the GA Southern game? I guess it does come down to what Longestday says above about watching the same video.

When are SEC replay officials ever going to be officially rebuked by their league when making calls helpful to an SEC team and detrimental to an ACC team?

 

[Longestday]

I think people need to re-watch the actual play. There is no ball tuck and his eyes follow the receiver all the way until the ball is released. The ball comes out at chest height with JT's arm completely extended. If you refuse to believe your eyes, I am ok with that... the SEC refs did as well.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

@Longestday . . . my hero. Thomas is even jumping and has a guy closing in on him. I have been intentionally trying to be consistent in my posts and NOT get into an argument about whether I think he was intending to do some form of a pump fake here or not. I am sticking with the point that it is irrelevant to how the play should have been called on the field. So now I will share my opinion on what went through Thomas's mind.

I do not see what good pump faking there would do with the guy closing in and Thomas leaving his feet. So I think he intended to try and force a pass in to Waller but then recognized how dangerous it was and tried to change tactic to what would have ended up as a pump fake. Remember all those back across his body dangerous throws to the middle of the field he made earlier in the season? I think he was trying to do too much had the fraction of a second realization that it was too dangerous a pass and that juxtaposition of intent to pass hitting change of mind to pull it back led to the ball coming out.

But, all that inner Thomas's mind stuff is irrelevant to the ball coming out during what the default assumption is supposed to be a forward pass. Because the issue is when does the ball come out, it comes out during a forward arm motion hence is an incompletion

 

[YJAlleyCat]

CPJ was so sure they got the call wrong that he sacrificed a time out to get them to review it. Sure looks like CPJ was right, but they screwed it up twice.

 

[B Lifsey]

I sure wish JT could/would give us his thoughts on what was happening

 

[RLR]

This is clearly a debate that won't be unanimously agreed upon & is utterly w/o benefit. nonetheless, I agree with dressedcheeseside on the semantic interpretation of the rules governing a forward pass. Also, no one here would ever lightly side with UGA over GT, so I respect you for giving your unbiased opinion.

That said, if you think this is an example of (c) unclear fumble/pass, therefore default to calling it a forward pass, we'd still have to overcome the review hurdle. Can there be indisputably ambiguous evidence? What a heady question. Based on the reasonable difference of opinion in this thread, the answer may be no. Therefore, if it's not indisputable, it can't be reversed on the basis of (c). . . And, I'm not sure to what degree I'm willing to fault the refs on this play only, if it was indeed a (c) fumble/pass.

As I said in my first argument, this is a very difficult call to make while watching it live b/c it's so unexpected. Me personally, when I was watching it on TV, it took me a second or 2 to realize the ball was loose. When UGA's sideline starting going nuts, I immeditely shouted "incomplete pass!" & did the intentional grounding hand signal & made a fool of myself. But that's only b/c I was praying to every god ever known that it wasn't a fumble. Based on what I saw during the actual play, there's no way in hell I would have blown my whistle & called it dead, if i were the ref & it was a neutral game. If anyone says differently, they are either a liar, an idiot, or a person who deserves a sincere "bravo" for making a hell of a call.

It's impossible to write a perfect rule. Read up on Kurt Godel's work. Brilliant stuff. Mankind's provably-unprovable intelligence may result in some unfortunate calls here or there in a football game, but it's also what make us truly unique. . . and provides the content for us to join in a lively debate on an otherwise dreary wednesday night. So,

THWG, go jackets, and cheers to unprovable proof.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It didn't even look like a pump fake. It looked like he intended to throw it, but saw that it was well defended and changed his mind mid-throw. He didn't even start to tuck the ball.

That is the way I saw it to. From the right angle you can clearly see him zeroing in on the receiver only to see a red jersey closing fast. It looks for all the world like he did not want to risk the interception and decided not to throw the ball in mid throw but never got the ball back into a tuck.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Hmmmmm. That's an interesting comment. An action/movement to make the pass rusher think you are passing the ball does not resemble a pass.

Come on, I'm accused of wearing gold colored glasses more than anybody and hate the mutts too and think the refs jobbed us in that game. This is not one of them and everybody pretending that wasn't an obvious pump fake is way over the homerism top. It gets filed under the "I see what I want to see" file.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

This is clearly a debate that won't be unanimously agreed upon & is utterly w/o benefit. nonetheless, I agree with dressedcheeseside on the semantic interpretation of the rules governing a forward pass. Also, no one here would ever lightly side with UGA over GT, so I respect you for giving your unbiased opinion.

That said, if you think this is an example of (c) unclear fumble/pass, therefore default to calling it a forward pass, we'd still have to overcome the review hurdle. Can there be indisputably ambiguous evidence? What a heady question. Based on the reasonable difference of opinion in this thread, the answer may be no. Therefore, if it's not indisputable, it can't be reversed on the basis of (c). . . And, I'm not sure to what degree I'm willing to fault the refs on this play only, if it was indeed a (c) fumble/pass.

As I said in my first argument, this is a very difficult call to make while watching it live b/c it's so unexpected. Me personally, when I was watching it on TV, it took me a second or 2 to realize the ball was loose. When UGA's sideline starting going nuts, I immeditely shouted "incomplete pass!" & did the intentional grounding hand signal & made a fool of myself. But that's only b/c I was praying to every god ever known that it wasn't a fumble. Based on what I saw during the actual play, there's no way in hell I would have blown my whistle & called it dead, if i were the ref & it was a neutral game. If anyone says differently, they are either a liar, an idiot, or a person who deserves a sincere "bravo" for making a hell of a call.

It's impossible to write a perfect rule. Read up on Kurt Godel's work. Brilliant stuff. Mankind's provably-unprovable intelligence may result in some unfortunate calls here or there in a football game, but it's also what make us truly unique. . . and provides the content for us to join in a lively debate on an otherwise dreary wednesday night. So,

THWG, go jackets, and cheers to unprovable proof.

Thank you, my issue is mainly with the semantics of the rule, especially it's ambiguity in this circumstance, this ambiguity gives the refs too much leeway. They need to rewrite the rule to say what they want it to say in these circumstances. It's really not that uncommon as pump fakes are an integral part of the game and can be dissected into distinct movements of the arm.

 

[LongforDodd]

Thomas was trying to pump fake to get the defender to commit his momentum (the Defender) to blocking his "pass" by leaving his feet (the Defender). If the Defender decommitted in tackling Justin, Justin could use his speed to get past that Defender.

 

[DTGT]

Thank you, my issue is mainly with the semantics of the rule, especially it's ambiguity in this circumstance, this ambiguity gives the refs too much leeway. They need to rewrite the rule to say what they want it to say in these circumstances. It's really not that uncommon as pump fakes are an integral part of the game and can be dissected into distinct movements of the arm.

There is no such thing as a pump fake according to the rules. It is a forward pass attempt (unless it goes backwards) until he completes the tuck.

I respectfully disagree and provide this evidence:

You omitted part of the rule in your explanation, here's the rule in it's entirety:

When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone, any intentional forward movement of his hand or arm starts the forward pass.

This says to me that intention to pass the ball must accompany any movement of the hand or arm for it to be ruled a pass attempt.

The intentional in this case means under the QB's own will (i.e. hit from behind causing arm to whiplash would be a fumble). It does not refer at all to intent to throw or not.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think people need to re-watch the actual play. There is no ball tuck and his eyes follow the receiver all the way until the ball is released. The ball comes out at chest height with JT's arm completely extended. If you refuse to believe your eyes, I am ok with that... the SEC refs did as well.

Good look, Longest. Thanks for providing that. After viewing that, I'll concede that it is not obviously a pump fake. I'm not sure what it is, it could be a pump fake or it could be an aborted pass.

What I am still clear on is what it's not. It's not an attempt to pass the ball downfield. Therefore, I still think the refs have room to make a judgement. Realize I'm not necessarily in agreement with their judgement, only that the rules allow for it due to their lack of clarity in all situations. An aborted pass is not articulated in the rules in the same way a pump fake is not.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

After several more looks at the clip, it looks a lot more like a pump fake than an aborted pass. He doesn't cock his arm back far enough to throw it 5 yards and the nearest receiver is 20+. Also, he doesn't twist his body either. A throw on the run still requires some core movement, it's not all arm. Either way, he intentionally stops his motion and I think that's what gives the refs their wiggle room to make a judgement.

Also, Longest says he never takes his eyes off his target. Ehhh, you can't tell who he's looking at in that clip, he could easily be looking at the defender in his face.

My guess is that he's trying to get the defender to jump at his fake so that he can run around him. The defender doesn't bite and it throws him off and the ball slips out as he's stopping the forward motion of the fake.

If this is what truly happened, the rule, as it's written, is not black and white clear how to call it.

 

[LongforDodd]

Good look, Longest. Thanks for providing that. After viewing that, I'll concede that it is not obviously a pump fake. I'm not sure what it is, it could be a pump fake or it could be an aborted pass.

What I am still clear on is what it's not. It's not an attempt to pass the ball downfield. Therefore, I still think the refs have room to make a judgement. Realize I'm not necessarily in agreement with their judgement, only that the rules allow for it due to their lack of clarity in all situations. An aborted pass is not articulated in the rules in the same way a pump fake is not.

It's an aborted pump fake.

 

[AE 87]

After several more looks at the clip, it looks a lot more like a pump fake than an aborted pass. He doesn't cock his arm back far enough to throw it 5 yards and the nearest receiver is 20+. Also, he doesn't twist his body either. A throw on the run still requires some core movement, it's not all arm. Either way, he intentionally stops his motion and I think that's what gives the refs their wiggle room to make a judgement.

Also, Longest says he never takes his eyes off his target. Ehhh, you can't tell who he's looking at in that clip, he could easily be looking at the defender in his face.

My guess is that he's trying to get the defender to jump at his fake so that he can run around him. The defender doesn't bite and it throws him off and the ball slips out as he's stopping the forward motion of the fake.

If this is what truly happened, the rule, as it's written, is not black and white clear how to call it.

Your last line could be true, or you could've just been over-interpreting the rule. It may be that the rule does not actually intend refs to be able to read minds to divine the intention of the QB. It could be that the clasuse, "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone" wants the refs to distinguish a passing posture from just running down the field holing the ball like a loaf of bread, to use your other example

 

[B Lifsey]

Come on, I'm accused of wearing gold colored glasses more than anybody and hate the mutts too and think the refs jobbed us in that game. This is not one of them and everybody pretending that wasn't an obvious pump fake is way over the homerism top. It gets filed under the "I see what I want to see" file.

I've made no judgement of the color of your glasses or your thoughts on this call...I just thought very ironic statement that an arm motion to intended deceive the defender into thinking a pass is occurring did not resemble a pass at all.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

It's an aborted pump fake.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Fwiw, the rules don't say it's a fumble, either. All in all, I think the refs erred in judgement rather than rule interpretation. As the head official of the ACC said, when in doubt, call it a forward pass. There's enough doubt to use that default.

The tiny hair I'm splitting is with the guys who say the rules clearly call this an incomplete pass. I just don't think it does, but that's my opinion.

 

[GTRX7]

After several more looks at the clip, it looks a lot more like a pump fake than an aborted pass. He doesn't cock his arm back far enough to throw it 5 yards and the nearest receiver is 20+. Also, he doesn't twist his body either. A throw on the run still requires some core movement, it's not all arm. Either way, he intentionally stops his motion and I think that's what gives the refs their wiggle room to make a judgement.

Also, Longest says he never takes his eyes off his target. Ehhh, you can't tell who he's looking at in that clip, he could easily be looking at the defender in his face.

My guess is that he's trying to get the defender to jump at his fake so that he can run around him. The defender doesn't bite and it throws him off and the ball slips out as he's stopping the forward motion of the fake.

If this is what truly happened, the rule, as it's written, is not black and white clear how to call it.

I agree it is not black and white clear, but it seems clear enough to me that the intent of the rule is that, if a QB loses the ball while his arm is going forward in a passing motion, it is an incomplete pass, regardless of subjective intent or whether the QB ends up actually trying to throw a pass. DC, would you consider there to be a difference between a pump fake fumble and an aborted pass fumble? Both result in a QB "holding the ball" in a passing motion and creating "forward movement of his hand or arm." Under your interpretation, it all comes down to whether they were holding the ball with an "intent" to pass. I don't think that is in the rule. In fact, with regard to intent, the only think the rule speaks to is whether the forward movement of his hand or arm is "intentional." I think there is no debate that happened here. The following line about erring on the side of a pass should put the question to bed. It should have been an incomplete pass.

Also, for everyone saying that it should have been intentional grounding if it wasn't a fumble, I think the name of that rule does imply that that rule has an "intentional" component. The ball clearly slipped out of his hand unintentionally. Therefore, I don't think it would be intentional grounding either. We have all seen a ball slip awkwardly out of a QB's hand to create a horrible duck pass. That is never called intentional grounding, because there is no intent there.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I agree it is not black and white clear, but it seems clear enough to me that the intent of the rule is that, if a QB loses the ball while his arm is going forward in a passing motion, it is an incomplete pass, regardless of subjective intent or whether the QB ends up actually trying to throw a pass. DC, would you consider there to be a difference between a pump fake fumble and an aborted pass fumble? Both result in a QB "holding the ball" in a passing motion and creating "forward movement of his hand or arm." Under your interpretation, it all comes down to whether they were holding the ball with an "intent" to pass. I don't think that is in the rule. In fact, with regard to intent, the only think the rule speaks to is whether the forward movement of his hand or arm is "intentional." I think there is no debate that happened here. The following line about erring on the side of a pass should put the question to bed. It should have been an incomplete pass.

Also, for everyone saying that it should have been intentional grounding if it wasn't a fumble, I think the name of that rule does imply that that rule has an "intentional" component. The ball clearly slipped out of his hand unintentionally. Therefore, I don't think it would be intentional grounding either. We have all seen a ball slip awkwardly out of a QB's hand to create a horrible duck pass. That is never called intentional grounding, because there is no intent there.

I've said everything I can say about this and it really is splitting hairs. The rules committee needs to clarify this rule in the offseason if they don't want more issues like this one.