Ok....the lateral????

[NINEster]

Probably illegal, but we won by 14 not 7.

Well, that changes things. Given the back and forth nature of the game, points were precious and accumulated momentum huge.

That and Wentz' fumble at the goal line.

Those two plays add up, only partially made up by Wentz' miraculous throw while falling.

As for the pass, it was a lateral in intent but momentum carried it forward. Usually when you have to ask if it was a forward pass, it typically is.

 

[Smellyman]

How is this 2 pages? The Seahawks got a gift.

no idea. Only in bizarro world can a ball that goes a yard forward be backwards.

mod edit.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

They didn't which apparently means they thought it was legit. If you fail to challenge, you have no right to complain.

I watched the game on NBC last night and it was a feed from Philly (Delaware Valley??) and they interviewed Pedersen after the game. This subject came up and he said that at the time it looked legit, he was very magnanimous about it in all honesty compared to someone like HotDog Head who would have whined like a bitch.

 

[StoneCold]

This was an important play and I'm glad there's some discussion as I wasn't sure how it should have been ruled. After reading here it was an illegal forward pass. It was not the sole reason we won, but it's still an interesting play and worthy of some scrutiny. Can't understand why they didn't challenge. Their guys in the booth had to have noticed it looked odd. I did and I'd had 3 beers. Hopefully someone in Philly asks Doug. In any case, great play and a great game.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

This was an important play and I'm glad there's some discussion as I wasn't sure how it should have been ruled. After reading here it was an illegal forward pass. It was not the sole reason we won, but it's still an interesting play and worthy of some scrutiny. Can't understand why they didn't challenge. Their guys in the booth had to have noticed it looked odd. I did and I'd had 3 beers. Hopefully someone in Philly asks Doug. In any case, great play and a great game.

They did ask him.

The bullet points of no challenge were:

In real time it looked like a legit lateral.

Pedersen had already lost one close challenge.

He was waiting for his guys upstairs but Seattle did a decent job of hurrying to the line.

Hindsight is 20/20 etc.

Edit: Pedersen didn't blame the defeat on a single moment like many would have (a la every Falcons fan ever). He talked about not being able to make the mistakes they did and executing better. He offered praise to the Seahawks, said how its a hard place to come etc. I completely respected what he had to say. Cant remember much else as it was 5am.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

Pederson said they thought it was legit in real time and didn't get enough angles to challenge before we hurried to the line. After already losing a close one earlier in the half they decided not to risk losing another timeout. If we hadn't hurried to the line they would have thrown the flag and got that overturned.

 

[Mindsink]

The lateral pass rule is outdated.
It should recognize where the players are in relation to eachother when the ball is tossed and not merely the travel of the ball. If a backward toss isnt even a lateral then NFL may have trouble with its ruling.
Some historic laterals were never scrutinized to this degree by guys like Cris Collingsworth.

This. 100%

I believe the rule was created to explicitly define a forward/backward pass by a QB in the pocket or behind the LoS. A lateral that happens by a ball carrier downfield should not be governed by those same rules.

If I'm at the front of a moving bus and throw a ball to someone in the back row, the ball technically moves forward. Think about that for a minute.

If you want to argue that it was technically a forward pass by the letter of the law, then fine. But Russ threw the ball backwards, and the ball traveled backwards from its trajectory when he pitched it.

The rule should be changed to account for this, and can easily be done by simply changing the framework for defining the pass as forward or backwards. Currently, it's defined as the point where the passer releases the ball and where the receiver catches the ball. It should be changed to whether the ball is caught behind the passer or in front of the passer.

 

[StoneCold]

This was an important play and I'm glad there's some discussion as I wasn't sure how it should have been ruled. After reading here it was an illegal forward pass. It was not the sole reason we won, but it's still an interesting play and worthy of some scrutiny. Can't understand why they didn't challenge. Their guys in the booth had to have noticed it looked odd. I did and I'd had 3 beers. Hopefully someone in Philly asks Doug. In any case, great play and a great game.

Apparently we got to the line quickly, he didn't get a good enough look to want to risk the timeout as it looked good to those on the field.

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/ ... ddeee7738f

GO HAWKS

 

[Seymour]

I don't get the "it wasn't argument". Forward is defined as closer to the opposing goal line. Russell had forward momentum that took the ball further down the field as he lateraled "what appeared to be behind him", but in reality it was not since his forward momentum took the ball closer to the goal line. That makes it an illegal forward lateral by definition folks. :roll:

 

[Mindsink]

I don't get the "it wasn't argument". Forward is defined as closer to the opposing goal line. Russell had forward momentum that took the ball further down the field as he lateraled "what appeared to be behind him", but in reality it was not since his forward momentum took the ball closer to the goal line. That makes it an illegal forward lateral by definition folks. :roll:

Yup. And there in lies the flaw in the rule. Forward should not be defined as closer to the opposing goal line. Forward should be defined as towards the opposing goal line.

 

[FidelisHawk]

The lateral pass rule is outdated.
It should recognize where the players are in relation to eachother when the ball is tossed and not merely the travel of the ball. If a backward toss isnt even a lateral then NFL may have trouble with its ruling.
Some historic laterals were never scrutinized to this degree by guys like Cris Collingsworth.

This. 100%

I believe the rule was created to explicitly define a forward/backward pass by a QB in the pocket or behind the LoS. A lateral that happens by a ball carrier downfield should not be governed by those same rules.

If I'm at the front of a moving bus and throw a ball to someone in the back row, the ball technically moves forward. Think about that for a minute.

If you want to argue that it was technically a forward pass by the letter of the law, then fine. But Russ threw the ball backwards, and the ball traveled backwards from its trajectory when he pitched it.

The rule should be changed to account for this, and can easily be done by simply changing the framework for defining the pass as forward or backwards. Currently, it's defined as the point where the passer releases the ball and where the receiver catches the ball. It should be changed to whether the ball is caught behind the passer or in front of the passer.

Great, let’s rewrite another rule that leaves whether it’s legal or not up to the referee’s discretion, and not what happens on the field. :34853_doh:

 

[mikeak]

We snapped the ball with like 3-4 secs in the clock. I am kind of laughing at "didn't have time to challenge"

Don't get me wrong - I am happy about it just doesn't make sense

 

[themunn]

The lateral pass rule is outdated.
It should recognize where the players are in relation to eachother when the ball is tossed and not merely the travel of the ball. If a backward toss isnt even a lateral then NFL may have trouble with its ruling.
Some historic laterals were never scrutinized to this degree by guys like Cris Collingsworth.

This. 100%

I believe the rule was created to explicitly define a forward/backward pass by a QB in the pocket or behind the LoS. A lateral that happens by a ball carrier downfield should not be governed by those same rules.

If I'm at the front of a moving bus and throw a ball to someone in the back row, the ball technically moves forward. Think about that for a minute.

If you want to argue that it was technically a forward pass by the letter of the law, then fine. But Russ threw the ball backwards, and the ball traveled backwards from its trajectory when he pitched it.

The rule should be changed to account for this, and can easily be done by simply changing the framework for defining the pass as forward or backwards. Currently, it's defined as the point where the passer releases the ball and where the receiver catches the ball. It should be changed to whether the ball is caught behind the passer or in front of the passer.

The rule was created in rugby, the game that American football evolved from. In this game that still exists to this day, they have the very same rule that a ball must be thrown backwards or laterally, and the game seems to be rather successful with it. Why is it so difficult to understand?
If the ball goes forward, it goes forward. Fortunately the sport is not played on moving buses so we don't need to worry about that analogy.

 

[sutz]

It's football, guys. It's not physics.

 

[Wartooth]

It was a clutch, heads up play by Russ... I'm sure the Eagles were in as much awe as everyone else!
The whining by Collinsworth and Al was a bit over the top, but hey, they were making excuses for the Eagles the whole game!
Would've, could've, should've...

I don't know it it was legal or not?

I do know a guy can catch a pass, run 5 yards, trip and fumble... And, that's an incomplete pass!

 

[Mindsink]

Great, let’s rewrite another rule that leaves whether it’s legal or not up to the referee’s discretion, and not what happens on the field. :34853_doh:

How does that leave it up to the referee's discretion?

 

[Mindsink]

The rule was created in rugby, the game that American football evolved from. In this game that still exists to this day, they have the very same rule that a ball must be thrown backwards or laterally, and the game seems to be rather successful with it. Why is it so difficult to understand?

And if this play happened in Rugby, it would be perfectly legal.

If the ball goes forward, it goes forward.

To me, the ball was already traveling forward, and then made an abrupt movement against its forward trajectory when Russ pitched it behind him.

Fortunately the sport is not played on moving buses so we don't need to worry about that analogy.

But it is played on a spinning Earth, that is always moving "forward" in one direction. Hmm... :thumbup:

 

[HawkerD]

How is this 2 pages? The Seahawks got a gift.

no idea. Only in bizarro world can a ball that goes a yard forward be backwards.

It is truly a stunning level of ignorance.

Your off base here. By rule you are correct...cut and dry. BUT the visual illusion, the physics involved make it an interesting conversation. Peterson doesn't challenge because it LOOKED like a backward pass live and on the first few replays. It isn't until NBC puts up the graphics and Collinsworth further analyzes the play is it evident to be a forward pass. Hawks get the next play off before Peterson can challenge. Again, he is not thinking about a challenge because of how it LOOKED.

 

[Sgt Largent]

How is this 2 pages? The Seahawks got a gift.

no idea. Only in bizarro world can a ball that goes a yard forward be backwards.

It is truly a stunning level of ignorance.

Ok, lets say Russ is behind the line of scrimmage but running full speed forward, he cocks his arm to throw deep down field but the ball comes out of his hand before he starts his forward arm motion. Replay shows the ball coming out of his hand as he is cocking it backward, but due to the speed at which he is running towards the line of scrimmage, the ball lands forward on the field of where he lost possession.

Go ahead and straight face us about how that would be ruled an incomplete pass. Drop the "stunning ignorance" nonsense. This is a legitimate debate.

rule (a) defines FORWARD PASS using the word "initial". My example above would be "not a forward pass"

rule (b) defines BACKWARD PASS as where it started relative to the field and where it makes contact relative to that starting point, so above, "not a backward pass" either.

Another example of poorly written rules, that has always been interpreted as did the arm motion INITIALLY propel it backwards or forwards.


P.S. If any reader of this is still suffering from a "stunning level of ignorance", hop in a convertible traveling 60 miles an hour and throw an egg as hard as you can straight behind you. Did the egg land forward of your release point? Nice forward pass you threw there... :34853_doh:

 

[Seymour]

The one hole in one I hit in my life I actually hit the ball 20-30 feet right of the pin. There was a strong R to L wind from an elevated tee that took the ball toward the pin and it ended up dropping in the hole. The ball ended in the hole even though it was not a good shot and was hit right.

I guess some here say that is not really a hole in one since I actually hit it 20 feet right of pin. :?: :idea:

The wind did the same thing Russells forward momentum did. It influenced the flight of the ball.