Ok....the lateral????

[cymatica]

Funny. The fail mary was technically a catch by the rulebook, but everyone freaked out because it looked like it wasn't. This time it's the opposite and "seattle gets ref help" is the narrative.

 

[pmedic920]

OK I just finished my exhaustive review of every Seahawks play in history, and they have been totally jobbed by the refs 463 times. This counts all playoff and Superbowl games.

Seahawk opponents have been jobbed just 397 times.

We still have some catching up to do.

Sad -- not one of you even has the courtesy to call BS.

You’re “HawkStorian” we have all grown to trust and respect you.

Are you saying our faith has been in vain?

 

[pmedic920]

If you watch Seahawks all access on Seahawks.com at the 5:20 mark it shows a very interesting angle of the lateral. It was filmed by the all access crew. It clearly looks like it was tossed backwards.

That’s really the whole point here.

It was tossed backwards but the letter of the rule ......

:{)

 

[Josea16]

If you watch Seahawks all access on Seahawks.com at the 5:20 mark it shows a very interesting angle of the lateral. It was filmed by the all access crew. It clearly looks like it was tossed backwards.

That’s really the whole point here.

It was tossed backwards but the letter of the rule ......

:{)

The rule is poorly written and wrong by definition. It was clearly tossed backwards and both Philadelphia and the referees knew it.

You don't define a lateral from where it happens to where it's caught that's inane. You define it by was it tossed backwards or parallel.

 

[Uncle Si]

You might not, but at the moment the NFL does.

I think we should be thankful we got away with it. No apologies necessary either as that definition is inane

 

[MontanaHawk05]

 

[twisted_steel2]

Perfect.

 

[FidelisHawk]

If you watch Seahawks all access on Seahawks.com at the 5:20 mark it shows a very interesting angle of the lateral. It was filmed by the all access crew. It clearly looks like it was tossed backwards.

That’s really the whole point here.

It was tossed backwards but the letter of the rule ......

:{)

The rule is poorly written and wrong by definition. It was clearly tossed backwards and both Philadelphia and the referees knew it.

You don't define a lateral from where it happens to where it's caught that's inane. You define it by was it tossed backwards or parallel.

I humbly disagree with your assessment, the rule as it is now written clearly defines what a forward pass is and what a backward pass (lateral) is. It’s up to the players to overcome weather, physics, gravity or any other outside force to fall inside the rule.

Because it doesn’t fit into how we feel the play should be called doesn't make the rule foolish or stupid.

I feel, it would be inane to rewrite a rule that ultimately leaves it up to the NFL or the referees to try to determine the players intent. It makes the referees’ jobs even harder and adds fuel to the commentary, “the ref’s are blind, out to screw the (insert favorite team) and ruining the game”, that’s all to prevalent now.



Shooting for page six..... :snack: :snack:

 

[Sgt Largent]

If you watch Seahawks all access on Seahawks.com at the 5:20 mark it shows a very interesting angle of the lateral. It was filmed by the all access crew. It clearly looks like it was tossed backwards.

That’s really the whole point here.

It was tossed backwards but the letter of the rule ......

:{)

The rule is poorly written and wrong by definition. It was clearly tossed backwards and both Philadelphia and the referees knew it.

You don't define a lateral from where it happens to where it's caught that's inane. You define it by was it tossed backwards or parallel.

I humbly disagree with your assessment, the rule as it is now written clearly defines what a forward pass is and what a backward pass (lateral) is. It’s up to the players to overcome weather, physics, gravity or any other outside force to fall inside the rule.

Because it doesn’t fit into how we feel the play should be called doesn't make the rule foolish or stupid.

I feel, it would be inane to rewrite a rule that ultimately leaves it up to the NFL or the referees to try to determine the players intent. It makes the referees’ jobs even harder and adds fuel to the commentary, “the ref’s are blind, out to screw the (insert favorite team) and ruining the game”, that’s all to prevalent now.



Shooting for page six..... :snack: :snack:

Page SIX here we come. Bolded by me. :snack:

That's a nice thought, but if you further read the rule, that's exactly what they have to do to determine whether it's a fumble or not. They have to read a players mind and determine intent. You see, due to how this rule is written, it would be impossible to fumble a ball while running forward with any momentum at all. So they have to determine whether you MEANT TO or not.

If your argument is that a sensible lateral rule should not be created because Refs would have to determine intent, well, they already do in the SAME RULE.

In my opinion, here's the litmus test for what makes sense regarding this rule. Rugby would cease to exist as a game under the NFL rule. But somehow, they manage to make rulings on dozens of these plays per game, in real time AND under review. In conclusion, it would be way to onerous on our Refs to do it 3 or 4 times a season?

Addendum (A) and by the way, they do all this with one, singular, uno, solitary, Sir (Ref) on the field, not the bakers dozen we have on the field in the NFL.

 

[Mad Dog]

There are many judgements by rule that are just plain silly from the "eye test" and we all know it.

KJ Wright's illegal touching

ARI's Andre Ellington Fumble/incomplete pass

Kam's hit on Vernon Davis

This is just another instance of the rule not being compatible with what everyone saw: Wilson lateralled the ball to Davis but because of newtonian laws of physics the ball travelled a slight bit forward to break an overly strict by the books rule.

Personally I would prefer the refs to use good judgement rather than have to follow rules to the absolute letter of the law. Some allowance for things like physics/intent are perfectly acceptable to me.

 

[pmedic920]

If you watch Seahawks all access on Seahawks.com at the 5:20 mark it shows a very interesting angle of the lateral. It was filmed by the all access crew. It clearly looks like it was tossed backwards.

That’s really the whole point here.

It was tossed backwards but the letter of the rule ......

:{)

The rule is poorly written and wrong by definition. It was clearly tossed backwards and both Philadelphia and the referees knew it.

You don't define a lateral from where it happens to where it's caught that's inane. You define it by was it tossed backwards or parallel.

I humbly disagree with your assessment, the rule as it is now written clearly defines what a forward pass is and what a backward pass (lateral) is. It’s up to the players to overcome weather, physics, gravity or any other outside force to fall inside the rule.

Because it doesn’t fit into how we feel the play should be called doesn't make the rule foolish or stupid.

I feel, it would be inane to rewrite a rule that ultimately leaves it up to the NFL or the referees to try to determine the players intent. It makes the referees’ jobs even harder and adds fuel to the commentary, “the ref’s are blind, out to screw the (insert favorite team) and ruining the game”, that’s all to prevalent now.



Shooting for page six..... :snack: :snack:

If you’re talking to me, what the Hell is there to “humbly disagree” with?

Everyone can clearly see that he tossed the ball backwards.

The “letter of the rule” is what makes it a “forward pass”.

I’m confused as to what part you disagree with.

 

[Seymour]

That’s really the whole point here.

It was tossed backwards but the letter of the rule ......

:{)

The rule is poorly written and wrong by definition. It was clearly tossed backwards and both Philadelphia and the referees knew it.

You don't define a lateral from where it happens to where it's caught that's inane. You define it by was it tossed backwards or parallel.

I humbly disagree with your assessment, the rule as it is now written clearly defines what a forward pass is and what a backward pass (lateral) is. It’s up to the players to overcome weather, physics, gravity or any other outside force to fall inside the rule.

Because it doesn’t fit into how we feel the play should be called doesn't make the rule foolish or stupid.

I feel, it would be inane to rewrite a rule that ultimately leaves it up to the NFL or the referees to try to determine the players intent. It makes the referees’ jobs even harder and adds fuel to the commentary, “the ref’s are blind, out to screw the (insert favorite team) and ruining the game”, that’s all to prevalent now.



Shooting for page six..... :snack: :snack:

If you’re talking to me, what the Hell is there to “humbly disagree” with?

Everyone can clearly see that he tossed the ball backwards.

The “letter of the rule” is what makes it a “forward pass”.

I’m confused as to what part you disagree with.

Well I'm going to need to disagree as well just to help get to page 6. :twisted:

 

[twisted_steel2]

It's really not that hard. If the player pitches the ball backwards or laterally..... all good.

The NFL rules are like digging through volumes of law books at this point, with tons of 'experts' trying to interpret them. It shouldn't be this difficult folks.

We all know what pitching a ball backwards or laterally looks like, should be good enough. unno:

 

[253hawk]

There are many judgements by rule that are just plain silly from the "eye test" and we all know it.

KJ Wright's illegal touching

ARI's Andre Ellington Fumble/incomplete pass

Kam's hit on Vernon Davis

This is just another instance of the rule not being compatible with what everyone saw: Wilson lateralled the ball to Davis but because of newtonian laws of physics the ball travelled a slight bit forward to break an overly strict by the books rule.

Personally I would prefer the refs to use good judgement rather than have to follow rules to the absolute letter of the law. Some allowance for things like physics/intent are perfectly acceptable to me.

Exactly. Everyone watching it happen was fine with it until the announcers mentioned that it might not be legal (just like KJ's touchback), because it makes sense logically that a lateral thrown backwards relative the the ball-carrier is still backwards and in no way a forward pass towards the goal line. None of the refs had a problem with it, the coach thought it was fine which is why he didn't challenge it, and none of the players started begging for a flag. Even if you have no general knowledge of relative motion, it's an acceptable play because it just makes sense.

If the Eagles had done it to us, I wouldn't have cared one bit because it's a heads-up play, adheres to the spirit of the rule, and is only something you're going to see maybe a few times per season anyway.

 

[pmedic920]

The rule is poorly written and wrong by definition. It was clearly tossed backwards and both Philadelphia and the referees knew it.

You don't define a lateral from where it happens to where it's caught that's inane. You define it by was it tossed backwards or parallel.

I humbly disagree with your assessment, the rule as it is now written clearly defines what a forward pass is and what a backward pass (lateral) is. It’s up to the players to overcome weather, physics, gravity or any other outside force to fall inside the rule.

Because it doesn’t fit into how we feel the play should be called doesn't make the rule foolish or stupid.

I feel, it would be inane to rewrite a rule that ultimately leaves it up to the NFL or the referees to try to determine the players intent. It makes the referees’ jobs even harder and adds fuel to the commentary, “the ref’s are blind, out to screw the (insert favorite team) and ruining the game”, that’s all to prevalent now.



Shooting for page six..... :snack: :snack:

If you’re talking to me, what the Hell is there to “humbly disagree” with?

Everyone can clearly see that he tossed the ball backwards.

The “letter of the rule” is what makes it a “forward pass”.

I’m confused as to what part you disagree with.

Well I'm going to need to disagree as well just to help get to page 6. :twisted:

How ironic would it be?

We make it to page 6 but you can’t log in to see it.

Bazinga
:{)

 

[VivaEfrenHerrera]

Funny. The fail mary was technically a catch by the rulebook, but everyone freaked out because it looked like it wasn't. This time it's the opposite and "seattle gets ref help" is the narrative.

Nice way of putting it. This really is an efficient way of using a narrative. No matter where you plug it in, it works!

 

[Josea16]

You might not, but at the moment the NFL does.

I think we should be thankful we got away with it. No apologies necessary either as that definition is inane

Thank you. Hence the reason the referees used good judgement not a literal interpretation of a poorly written rule.

 

[FidelisHawk]

That’s really the whole point here.

It was tossed backwards but the letter of the rule ......

:{)

The rule is poorly written and wrong by definition. It was clearly tossed backwards and both Philadelphia and the referees knew it.

You don't define a lateral from where it happens to where it's caught that's inane. You define it by was it tossed backwards or parallel.

I humbly disagree with your assessment, the rule as it is now written clearly defines what a forward pass is and what a backward pass (lateral) is. It’s up to the players to overcome weather, physics, gravity or any other outside force to fall inside the rule.

Because it doesn’t fit into how we feel the play should be called doesn't make the rule foolish or stupid.

I feel, it would be inane to rewrite a rule that ultimately leaves it up to the NFL or the referees to try to determine the players intent. It makes the referees’ jobs even harder and adds fuel to the commentary, “the ref’s are blind, out to screw the (insert favorite team) and ruining the game”, that’s all to prevalent now.



Shooting for page six..... :snack: :snack:

If you’re talking to me, what the Hell is there to “humbly disagree” with?

Everyone can clearly see that he tossed the ball backwards.

The “letter of the rule” is what makes it a “forward pass”.

I’m confused as to what part you disagree with.

I was speaking directly to josea 16 and more indirectly others that agree generally with his line of thoughts. "The rule is poorly written and wrong by definition."

If you fall into the second category then I do humbly disagree with you, as well as others, if not then nevermind…..

 

[FidelisHawk]

Page SIX here we come. Bolded by me. :snack:

That's a nice thought, but if you further read the rule, that's exactly what they have to do to determine whether it's a fumble or not. They have to read a players mind and determine intent. You see, due to how this rule is written, it would be impossible to fumble a ball while running forward with any momentum at all. So they have to determine whether you MEANT TO or not.

If your argument is that a sensible lateral rule should not be created because Refs would have to determine intent, well, they already do in the SAME RULE.

In my opinion, here's the litmus test for what makes sense regarding this rule. Rugby would cease to exist as a game under the NFL rule. But somehow, they manage to make rulings on dozens of these plays per game, in real time AND under review. In conclusion, it would be way to onerous on our Refs to do it 3 or 4 times a season?

Addendum (A) and by the way, they do all this with one, singular, uno, solitary, Sir (Ref) on the field, not the bakers dozen we have on the field in the NFL.

I fully understand your reasoning, while disagreeing as well. In my eyes, to add another layer of interpretation to a play, that may only happen once or twice in a season, seems to needlessly complicate the rule that is pretty black and white.

That said, the rules committee has changed rules for plays that happen far less frequently, the “tuck rule” was rewritten to be a fumble, after only being call only once (to my knowledge), as well as the fourth down forward fumble rule, again to cover a play that happened only once (that I recall).

The committee certainly could decide to rewrite, or include a rule to cover laterals (or backward passes in the field of play) if they felt that, the rule as it is; A), gives one team, or the other, a distinct advantage, B) is ambiguous enough to make it hard to determine on the field, even through replay or C) is disputed enough to require a more elaborate definition.

Five pages (or more) of a fan forum debate aside, I doubt the NFL will give this any consideration at all. Had Davis been a single yard farther behind Wilson only the discussion would be about what a heads up play they made. Even as it stands, it has hardly generated the fervor either of the above examples did.

Of course if I had a buck for every time I was w-w-ww, w-w-ww, incorrect, I would be at least two or three dollars richer.

 

[253hawk]

C'mon six...

Wilson could have literally been at walking speed and thrown it exactly parallel to his body (ensuring the maximum 'forward potential' of the ball) and it still would be a forward pass according to the letter of the rule. Even if Usain Bolt did the same while running at full speed, the ball is only going to go 'forward' a few yards at best -- hardly any kind of advantage considering the risk involved.