What an absolutely unhinged college football season this has been in terms of producing ridiculous game-defining plays. Arkansas just entered the hall of honor with its Houdini on Saturday evening against Ole Miss.
I’m calling it “Woo Pig Lateral.”
This play joins TCU’s “Flea Tipper” against Texas Tech; BYU’s two Tanner Mangum-produced “Mormon Miracles”; Michigan State’s “Immaculate Implosion” touchdown against Michigan; Georgia Tech’s “Block Six” against Florida State; and the Miami-Duke finish (on one level, better than Cal-Stanford in 1982, but on another level, illegal) as one of the signature moments of an insane autumn.
Just one of those plays creates the memory of a season; having all of those plays crammed into just 10 weeks of the season — WE HAVE FIVE WEEKS OF REGULAR-SEASON FOOTBALL LEFT, FOLKS! — is quite remarkable.
What’s to be said about “Woo Pig Lateral”? More than you might first think.
*
Plenty of discussion emerged during and immediately after the play about its legality. Tweeps wondered in real time if a fourth-down lateral, which can legitimately be called a fumble if not caught on the fly, could be advanced by another player. The good folks at Football Scoop picked up on this (pun intended) with a brief story filed after the contest ended. It’s definitely worth a read.
A couple things right off the bat, before going any deeper into this discussion:
1) Stories are worth reading if they stimulate healthy debate about a point worth clarifying. They don’t have to be considered worthy of your time only because you might agree with them. No, a story can develop an illuminating conversation and still not align with your own views. That’s very important to remember in a democratic society, or at least, one which purports to be.
2) I’m thankful to Football Scoop for writing this piece. It’s an article that needed to be written, and the author should be applauded for bringing up the topic. What I’m about to say should not be viewed in a personal context, but in terms of larger attitudes about the sport of football.
*
It is relevant — and more than a little ironic — that in the Football Scoop piece linked above (again, do read it), the author mentions the word “intent” with respect to the way in which the rule in question is supposed to be applied.
First of all, about the rule itself: The murky dividing line between a “fumble” and a “backwards pass” — which is very much at issue here — can itself be seen as a question of intent. One does not fumble intentionally, or to be more specific, one CANNOT fumble intentionally and be rewarded for it. This is why rules were put in place after the 1978 Holy Roller between the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers.
The accidental (note that word — it’s important) fumbling of a ball on fourth down cannot be rewarded. The INTENT of the rule was and is to prevent a forward-flowing fumble from gaining a first down or touchdown, thereby rewarding the defense for forcing a fumble in a hugely significant situation. That’s entirely appropriate. If the fumble happens to be backward, the defense still forced the fumble, so the idea that a fumble in any direction on fourth down can’t be legally advanced by anyone other than the initial fumbler is a good rule.
Moreover, as briefly alluded to at the beginning of this piece, it is reasonable for people to say that a backwards pass not caught on the fly is — well, what else do you call it? — a FUMBLE. The ball is live for the defense to cover when it hits the ground. I’m certainly not going to oppose anyone who says that Arkansas fumbled the ball. Ergo, I can see exactly why one would say that the play should be illegal, and that Ole Miss SHOULD have won the game.
With this in mind…
… the play is legal and SHOULD be legal.
The reason? INTENT — that inconvenient six-letter word.
*
Think about it: While one can debate whether a backwards pass becomes a fumble if it’s not caught on the fly, one can just as easily note that a backwards pass conveys the reality of a desired choice on the part of a ballcarrier. I throw a backwards pass because I choose to, not because a hit jarred the ball from my grasp, which is what a fumble most centrally is.
In the case of “Woo Pig Lateral,” the Ole Miss defense did not cause the ball be flung to the other side of the field; the down-and-distance situation combined with the scoreboard caused that decision to be made. That the play came on fourth down has something — but not everything — to do with this. What remains is that the offense did something which — under more “normal” circumstances — wouldn’t have become a likely option.
What I’ve said to this point fully respects the view that an uncaught (on the fly) backwards pass is a fumble. I have acknowledged that it’s hard to get around the idea that an uncaught backwards pass is NOT a fumble.
Yet, the question of intent remains… and it is still as thorny regardless of whether the backwards pass is caught or not.
Ask yourself this: Should it matter whether a backwards pass is not caught on the fly on fourth down, as opposed to second down?
This iconic play from college football history occurred on fourth down:
This not-as-iconic play occurred on second down, but in the final minutes of regulation:
Are we to say that the defense forced the backwards pass in either instance? Surely not. Are we to say that the Boise State lateral is somehow more legitimate or less of a fumble than the Wisconsin “bounce pass”?
These were both planned plays. The defense played no role in forcing them. The offense chose (pursued) them. These examples illustrate the intentionality of a backwards pass, distinguishing it from a “classic” fumble, even though the territory of fumbles and backwards passes can and does overlap.
Was the Arkansas play less planned or scripted than either Boise State’s hook and lateral or Wisconsin’s “bounce pass”? Sure. Yet, the element of an intentional choice — as opposed to the defense causing a fumble with a hit or a strip — remains.
*
When I read that Football Scoop story and saw the word “intent” used in relationship to what coaches and people inside the industry think of Woo Pig Lateral, my mind went directly to one place: legal pass reception rules.
When I see people saying what the rulebook was meant to prevent, I can’t shake the idea that 15 years ago, when Jabar Gaffney of Florida caught that pass against Tennessee, a lot of people in positions of (rule-making or rule-revising) power thought that college football’s pass-reception rules were much too generous toward receivers. People in power thought it appropriate that the standards for possession had to be raised to a considerable degree. That play — at least at the collegiate level (I’m less sure about the NFL’s stricter rules on the same topic) — brought us to the present day’s immense confusion about what a catch really is.
It all started with a debate about what the INTENT of rules should be.
Watch what you wish for with the intent of a rule, college football. Many rules uncover ridiculously unfair practices and inclinations. Goodness knows, I never miss an opportunity to rail against a patently unfair or pointless (or both) rule.
This isn’t one of them.
Woo Pig Touchdown. Arkansas won this game fair and square… unlike Miami over Duke.