Ok....the lateral????

[FidelisHawk]

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.

This actually emphasises the key points in our little debate:
If Wilson had “been at walking speed and thrown it exactly parallel” the play would have been, most likely, challenged, called illegal, or both. Review would be needed to see if the ball was indeed touched even or behind his release position and the hash marks, if available, would definitively make that decision or the play would stand as called.

On the other hand, if the rule were to be changed the referee, either on the field or in NY, would have to make a determination if Wilson indeed “lateraled even” regardless where he release the ball or the second player touched it.

 

[keasley45]

So it was a backward pass that (because we as earthlings have yet to overcome the laws of physics) went forward. And as such, by interpretation of the rules as written by the NFL (considering primarily stationary 'passers'), is a forward pass.

So, the NFL should either rewrite the rule to take into account physics and relativity, so that players running at 20 mph downfield aren't expected to contort themselves into an impossible position to toss the ball in the opposite direction at 20mph to prevent the ball from traveling 'forward', or the league should keep it as is and for all intents and purposes, eliminate the possibility of a lateral on a running play. I personally like the rugby definition which is more in keeping with logic that says something to the effect of ... the ball cannot travel toward the opponents goal relative to the point at which the player releases it. This, in my eyes, would clear things up forever.

Hey - When i'm driving and one of my friends who's sitting in the backseat of my car asks me to toss a bag of peanuts to him from the glove box, he doesnt ask, 'can you toss them forward to me???'...

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Watch the replay, he was gonna' have the first down anyway. And there isn't enough to overturn it regardless.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

Perfect.

Looking at this frame it's almost impossible that he threw the ball forward. Assuming Russ is looking at the guy he's lateralling to, he's also looking backwards.
I either didn't pay attention in high school or first year university physics or that principal is at a higher level, cause this is the first I recall hearing it.

 

[FidelisHawk]

So it was a backward pass that (because we as earthlings have yet to overcome the laws of physics) went forward. And as such, by interpretation of the rules as written by the NFL (considering primarily stationary 'passers'), is a forward pass.

This isn’t necessarily true, the rule covers forward passes, backward passes, second passes and laterals all equally and definitively, regardless weather, wind or physics.

So, the NFL should either rewrite the rule to take into account physics and relativity, so that players running at 20 mph downfield aren't expected to contort themselves into an impossible position to toss the ball in the opposite direction at 20mph to prevent the ball from traveling 'forward', or the league should keep it as is and for all intents and purposes, eliminate the possibility of a lateral on a running play.

Wilson certainly didn’t have to contort himself into an impossible position to barely miss making this play legal by a single yard. I propose had Davis been a yard further behind him he would have been able to do so equally as well, without any more physical distress.

I personally like the rugby definition which is more in keeping with logic that says something to the effect of ... the ball cannot travel toward the opponents goal relative to the point at which the player releases it. This, in my eyes, would clear things up forever.

Or cause more debate whether the referees' understanding of the physics involved is superior to yours, mine, Neil Degrasse Tyson’s or the players’.

Hey - When i'm driving and one of my friends who's sitting in the backseat of my car asks me to toss a bag of peanuts to him from the glove box, he doesnt ask, 'can you toss them forward to me???'...

He also doesn’t ask if you can do that with both hands on the wheel or your eyes on the road either, but neither has much to do with football, just on how the "rules" should be applied. :lol:

 

[keasley45]

So it was a backward pass that (because we as earthlings have yet to overcome the laws of physics) went forward. And as such, by interpretation of the rules as written by the NFL (considering primarily stationary 'passers'), is a forward pass.

This isn’t necessarily true, the rule covers forward passes, backward passes, second passes and laterals all equally and definitively, regardless weather, wind or physics.

So, the NFL should either rewrite the rule to take into account physics and relativity, so that players running at 20 mph downfield aren't expected to contort themselves into an impossible position to toss the ball in the opposite direction at 20mph to prevent the ball from traveling 'forward', or the league should keep it as is and for all intents and purposes, eliminate the possibility of a lateral on a running play.

Wilson certainly didn’t have to contort himself into an impossible position to barely miss making this play legal by a single yard. I propose had Davis been a yard further behind him he would have been able to do so equally as well, without any more physical distress.

I personally like the rugby definition which is more in keeping with logic that says something to the effect of ... the ball cannot travel toward the opponents goal relative to the point at which the player releases it. This, in my eyes, would clear things up forever.

Or cause more debate whether the referees' understanding of the physics involved is superior to yours, mine, Neil Degrasse Tyson’s or the players’.

Hey - When i'm driving and one of my friends who's sitting in the backseat of my car asks me to toss a bag of peanuts to him from the glove box, he doesnt ask, 'can you toss them forward to me???'...

He also doesn’t ask if you can do that with both hands on the wheel or your eyes on the road either, but neither has much to do with football, just on how the "rules" should be applied. :lol:

Very clever responses, but it's not that complicated. And if officials in rugby can figure it out, nfl officials should be able to as well. They deal with runners lateralling the ball all of the time. In todays nfl, the definition of forward should ideally be considered relative to the position of the passer. Simple as that. Whether it changes... rules change every year. We'll see.

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

The entire notion of a legal moving lateral — a play utilized since the beginning of the sport — is now in question. Some clarification from the NFL should be in order.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Well, since the Hawks did it, of course something will happen. If Lord Rodgers or Brady did it, they would give them some kind of award of courage.

 

[FidelisHawk]

So it was a backward pass that (because we as earthlings have yet to overcome the laws of physics) went forward. And as such, by interpretation of the rules as written by the NFL (considering primarily stationary 'passers'), is a forward pass.

This isn’t necessarily true, the rule covers forward passes, backward passes, second passes and laterals all equally and definitively, regardless weather, wind or physics.

So, the NFL should either rewrite the rule to take into account physics and relativity, so that players running at 20 mph downfield aren't expected to contort themselves into an impossible position to toss the ball in the opposite direction at 20mph to prevent the ball from traveling 'forward', or the league should keep it as is and for all intents and purposes, eliminate the possibility of a lateral on a running play.

Wilson certainly didn’t have to contort himself into an impossible position to barely miss making this play legal by a single yard. I propose had Davis been a yard further behind him he would have been able to do so equally as well, without any more physical distress.

I personally like the rugby definition which is more in keeping with logic that says something to the effect of ... the ball cannot travel toward the opponents goal relative to the point at which the player releases it. This, in my eyes, would clear things up forever.

Or cause more debate whether the referees' understanding of the physics involved is superior to yours, mine, Neil Degrasse Tyson’s or the players’.

Hey - When i'm driving and one of my friends who's sitting in the backseat of my car asks me to toss a bag of peanuts to him from the glove box, he doesnt ask, 'can you toss them forward to me???'...

He also doesn’t ask if you can do that with both hands on the wheel or your eyes on the road either, but neither has much to do with football, just on how the "rules" should be applied. :lol:

Very clever responses, but it's not that complicated. And if officials in rugby can figure it out, nfl officials should be able to as well. They deal with runners lateralling the ball all of the time. In todays nfl, the definition of forward should ideally be considered relative to the position of the passer. Simple as that. Whether it changes... rules change every year. We'll see.

Well, not that many really if you exclude end of the game razzle dazzle. I just don’t see the need for a change, but if they decide to do so, I won’t go crazy about it either. Certainly not like I feel about a catch/no-catch rule change.

Besides my real intent is to get this debate, over something that didn’t happen, to six pages now.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

 

[Lords of Scythia]

MVP play.

Precisely.

GO HAWKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

How the hell are we on the 6th page???

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Ok. Any RULE should be judged by it's usefulness during live play. If it isnt called or if is too confounding then it fails the refs who are the enforcers.

In this instance the rule and definitions failed the refs because the ball travels in an arc relative to the field but appears to travel in a straight line relative to players. Because the referees were likely moving as well this play may have been impossible to call during live play. It easily passes the eye test. As it stands it was considered a legal play because frankly it counted.

Not many lateral or backward passes will be easily determined depending on the speed and distance between the players using its current rules. You need a freeze frame to even determine where the ball is when it begins and ends on its flight. The alternative to this is to change the rule so the refs only judge the relative position of players involved at the start of the toss.

We learned that depending on the speed of the players, distance apart and initial angle of the toss the ball may advance beyond the point it left the pitchman. Do we need to stop and use slow mo replay everytime EVEN WHEN REFEREES FAIL TO MAKE A CALL?

 

[ccla]

This is how the rule is going to be rewritten:

It will be the last play of the Superbowl in which the patriots will be playing team X. Now if team X throws a lateral and scores a touchdown as the time expires and coach belichick challanges, then the touchdown play will reversed with the explanation that the rule clearly states that is a forward pass.
However if the patriots score a touchdown in a similar manner, then the play will be upheld citing that the spirit of the rule or some such bullshit.

CCLA

 

[sutz]

This is how the rule is going to be rewritten:

It will be the last play of the Superbowl in which the patriots will be playing team X. Now if team X throws a lateral and scores a touchdown as the time expires and coach belichick challanges, then the touchdown play will reversed with the explanation that the rule clearly states that is a forward pass.
However if the patriots score a touchdown in a similar manner, then the play will be upheld citing that the spirit of the rule or some such bullshit.

CCLA

Well, it did have all of the "elements" of a backwards pass.

Yay! 6 pages! Wanna try for 7? :mrgreen:

 

[chris98251]

Who did we beat, the Eagles, nobody cares about the Eagles it wasn't a playoff game either. Now if that was against the Packers, the Giants. the Patriots or the Cowboys or Steelers they would make a rule change next year.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

Who did we beat, the Eagles, nobody cares about the Eagles it wasn't a playoff game either. Now if that was against the Packers, the Giants. the Patriots or the Cowboys or Steelers they would make a rule change next year.

Like the Cam Chancellor rule? “No more leaping the line.” If they make a rule to stop you from being dominate it should automatically send you to the HOF.

 

[Seanhawk]

Who did we beat, the Eagles, nobody cares about the Eagles it wasn't a playoff game either. Now if that was against the Packers, the Giants. the Patriots or the Cowboys or Steelers they would make a rule change next year.

What rule is there to be changed? That every play is reviewable in case some coach is too dumb to throw a challenge flag?

 

[chris98251]

Who did we beat, the Eagles, nobody cares about the Eagles it wasn't a playoff game either. Now if that was against the Packers, the Giants. the Patriots or the Cowboys or Steelers they would make a rule change next year.

What rule is there to be changed? That every play is reviewable in case some coach is too dumb to throw a challenge flag?

Don't laugh, they tried to make it so fans could not cheer in the Kingdome when plays were being called by the opposition.