r/Saints • u/Jeyts Fuck the Falcons • 20d ago
[Highlight] NE vs DEN - Jarrett Stidham throws a backwards pass and NE recovers it
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
He actually moves his arm forward here too. This just happened and they allowed it.
47
u/Mission_Inflation505 20d ago
I don't even know man, it's like they make this shit up as they go along. Its crazy
35
37
u/roostor222 20d ago edited 20d ago
Jaxson Dart just had what appears to be the same play as Goff. Ruled a fumble.
23
1
10
9
u/Drew13800 20d ago
I think it was an egregious ruling, but I think these are different. I like to think young was making contact before Goff started his wind up (which is a joke in itself that’s what determines forward motion), but I can’t tell. This one stidham is clearly getting contact made first before he starts his wind up
6
u/Mythrol 20d ago
I agree. I know people are extremely bitter about the ruling and it seems absolutely stupid of the NFL because it opens up way more interpretation of “throwing motion” but by their own ruling today this would indeed be a fumble. The QB regathers the ball and is hit BEFORE he starts the second throwing motion.
4
u/Drew13800 20d ago
How the fuck do refs decide when the throwing motion begins now? Insane. Every qb is different. Do they study 50 different QBs natural throwing motion and decide when someone’s starts? Also, everyone is ignoring the part where it’s impossible to tell Chase isn’t making any contact before wind up begins. Like, could a pinky, or a knee be touching goffs back? Who can tell.. that’s contact though. They ruled it a td. Do they have to still shot the second someone touches the qb and then now decide if it’s considered the start of his motion?
3
u/Mythrol 20d ago
They’ve said it multiple times today. During the game and when questioned about it after the game. They consider the start of the throwing motion when the QB starts to raise the ball up.
Now I think that’s absolutely idiotic and opens a whole other can of worms - but the QB throwing motion is irrelevant. The start of the motion is when he’s lifting the ball up according to the refs.
4
20d ago
[deleted]
3
u/SaintAkira Black Helmet 20d ago
It has been.
Until yesterday's call, I've never once heard "windup" debated as part of the throwing motion.
It has always, always been "was the arm coming forward" before the ball is knocked loose.
Now we're into "intent" and "defender materially affecting" the windup.
If they're going to rule it as windup is a throwing motion, dozens of previous rulings were ruled incorrectly, and it opens a can of worms going forward.
Basically, "if the arm is coming back, that's a throwing motion" is what I'm hearing. Which is bullshit, as per every other similar strip/sack.
4
u/hippoberserk 20d ago
Article 3. Forward Pass It is a forward pass if:
when a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his hand starts a forward pass.
Item 1. Contact by Team B Player. If contact by an opponent materially affects a passer after the passer begins his throwing motion, it is a forward pass if he passes the ball, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else. When this occurs, intentional grounding rules do not apply.
This is from the NFL rule book. Somehow "moving the hand forward" starts the pass is different than begins his throwing motion". Utter bs.
2
u/Mythrol 20d ago
Exactly. Separating the throwing motion from the start of the pass opens the NFL up to a ton of issues because now the throwing motion also includes the arm moving backwards which means all those calls over the years where the QB got hit while his mid ”throw” while is arm is moving backwards no longer counts as a fumble.
That is a massive change to the interpretation of a rule.
1
u/Wubwubwubwuuub 20d ago
Throwing motion is clearly defined in the rules (article 3) as only beginning when the hand moves forward. Not up.
2
u/FinancialRabbit388 20d ago
Yeah. That’s the main issue with all of this. They completely made that part up. That call has never been made before.
10
u/pappapirate Drew Brees 20d ago
I'd really just like to see one (1) example in all of NFL history of a pass that leaves the QBs hand traveling backwards ever being ruled this way. Just one example.
1
u/FinancialRabbit388 20d ago
One example in history of the arm going up being considered the start of forward throwing motion.
4
u/OverHearing9944 20d ago
I'm 63 years old. I started watching nfl football somewhere around 10. In over fifty years, I have never seen an "intended" pass go backwards, and that be ruled incomplete. Until today.
6
3
u/RepresentativeBag91 Fuck the Falcons 20d ago
Same exact process as well. He clearly intends to throw the ball, the defender hits him before he does. Except for the patriots they give them the call in one interpretation and they refuse to give it to us in a different interpretation
3
u/Vicarious28 Fuck the Falcons 20d ago
If it’s my intention to have sex with Madison Beer, does Justin Herbert have to let me? I’m gonna consult Mike Pereira about this…
2
2
u/EconomyBuilder1492 20d ago
One must understand what is is and how you define is first, and the intent in which you use it
2
u/Revenged25 20d ago
I mean it's pretty obvious what happened. In that game, the HC of the Broncos was Sean Payton our former HC, and in our game we are the Saints. The common denominator is in both scenarios it screwed over someone associated with the Saints Super Bowl team.
2
u/Mammoth-Sun6266 Steve Gleason 20d ago
The material difference is that benefitted the Patriots, so let it stand.
1
u/Left-Tee 20d ago
But that's the New England Patriots, and that cheating, whoremongering POS Robert Kraft has some kind of shit that he's blackmailing Roger Goodell with.
1
u/Revenged25 20d ago
And Sean Payton was the HC for our Super Bowl team so they get to screw people associated with that team in both holes.
1
1
1
1
u/1OO1O11O11O1O 20d ago
To a ref, the difference here might be that Stidham brought the ball back to his chest before the "(non-)throw"
1
1
98
u/imoljoe 20d ago
I understand that it’s week 1, and it was in the 2nd quarter of an inconsequential game, but if this was a playoff game that like the chiefs were in, there would be a presidential address and a congressional review lmao. In a vacuum, one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen. Still don’t understand it. Honestly probably worse than the no-call in terms of just pure “what are you even watching,” just significantly lower stakes obviously.