Lateral Damage

After watching all the scramble plays over the past seasons & especially Wilson's 50 yard run this past game, why don't teams employ the Lateral pass more?

Being a fan of Rugby Union I was screaming for Wilson to give it to Richardson (but knowing full well he was never going to) as you could see he was tiring and Richardson would have easily gone the extra 50.

I think it would work well for this team with having a scrambling QB on broken plays, they could easily practice it like tip drills for the defense, they wouldn't need to use it all the time but in certain situations would be lethal.

A trick play of sorts, any thoughts?

You don't see it at all (except as a last gasp desperation at the end of a game) because of the ball security issue. A lost fumble would not only negate the big play, it would also give the opponent great starting field position. This was attempted by Reggie Bush after a big run in the 2006 Rose Bowl National Championship game, which of course resulted in a lost fumble.

I don't like to see that except when a lineman has the ball and he's being trailed by someone with better ball skills, like when a D-lineman gets a fumble, it's often a good idea for him to give it up to a DB if one is there.

Also, you're kind of asking the guy to know what is going on behind him and who's there to catch such lateral.

Mostly, though, you don't try to get 'cute' in situations like that IMO. Just get what yardage you can and take the tackle. It really sucks to have a big play like that negated by fumbling the ball at the end.

The inherent danger is only because the offload is not practiced. Otherwise, a pitch 20 yards down the field is no more dangerous that a pitch to a running back in the backfield. Additionally, if the ball is dropped it can still be picked up by the offense - it's not necessarily a turnover like it is in Rugby.

You have no idea how many times I have seen 10 guys in a pile all around Lynch where I thought if Lynch could just get the ball to another player, that guy would take it to the house completely unopposed.

It's not like NFL players have bad hands. If they were aware of the potential lateral or were trained to expect it, we'd invent a new brand of football.

I don't think Pete Carroll would allow such a risk with his emphasis on ball control. Even when the Hawks do "trick plays" like flea flickers or WR passes, they are not supposed to throw it unless a player is REALLY open on the receiving end. And they practice the pitches and catches a ton.

Things like laterals on big plays are impossible to practice because you never know who is going to be around you, how far down the field you will be, etc.

I'd love to see it sometime, just don't think Pete Carroll would be the coach to implement it here.

Being a British union fan, I definitely relate to this too. It would be great to take the risk sometimes, I don't see why football players would have considerably worse hands than rugby players.

I figure I must be wrong though as no one does it. Has any team ever utilised it on a regular basis?

The Ravens defense of the early 2000's would do it quite often on interceptions.

Heck, here's one they did in 2010: [youtube]d456j-J0nhA[/youtube]

hawknation2014":1sz0dsfw said:

You don't see it at all (except as a last gasp desperation at the end of a game) because of the ball security issue. A lost fumble would not only negate the big play, it would also give the opponent great starting field position.

Click to expand...

I don't think ball security would be that much of an issue, WR's are trained to catch the ball a QB is trained to throw the ball, I'm sort of specifically talking about a Wilson scramble play, so to lessen any error. After all a pass can be intercepted but they still throw it up there for the receivers to catch. Would just love to see it happen!

KiwiHawk":1sz0dsfw said:

It's not like NFL players have bad hands. If they were aware of the potential lateral or were trained to expect it, we'd invent a new brand of football.

Click to expand...

This is my thought too, if you practiced it and your core offensive players ( WR, TE, RB) were told to 'always expect it' much like our receivers must have been told to keep the play alive and get open for Wilson when the play has broken down, then a play like that would be well worth the risk.

while there is an upside, the downside is to big. The correlation between turnover differential and win/loss is strong. Getting tackled and holding on to the ball gives the Offense another opportunity to continue the drive. Turnovers are not only drive killers but swing the momentum.

On a Rugby team all the players are used to handling the ball. Not so in the NFL. You could practice this but there isn't time to practice something that will be rarely used. IMO it is a bad idea for a ball control team like the hawks.

HawkFan72":3i14vcdc said:

Things like laterals on big plays are impossible to practice because you never know who is going to be around you, how far down the field you will be, etc.

Click to expand...

My thought too. I don't know rugby well enough, but I imagine the formations and positioning of players is directly suited for the lateral. Football is way different. The flow of movement, the directions that players go, the field of vision with the helmet, etc. What looks like a simple "Hey, there you are! Here, take the ball" on TV, is actually a chaotic mess of an on-ramp to Turnover Town.

I agree, it would be really cool if it worked and it's an untapped play that may find some light in the NFL the same way the read option did. It would be very surprising to see it with any regularity though.

pete carroll's biggest thing is keeping the ball no matter what, not making big returns/plays. Every time that ball is out of a player's hands it's fair game. if you have the ball, your opponent doesn't.

Here is something that doesn't seem to relate, but actually does quite closely.

Back in the 1970's, the option variants were the rave of college football. There was the veer, the wishbone, and a multitude of variants. It was a means for physically imposing Oklahoma to dominate, but more importantly, it was also a means for a talent deficient squad like Air Force to play competitively against bigger programs. All you needed was a gifted QB that could implement it well, and a power running threat to run it up the middle.

So what does this have to do with laterals?

Everything.

Those offenses died like the dinosaurs. Almost overnight. It is because they all involved a pitch element and after the sample size grew large enough, the coaches discovered that the pitch (similar to a lateral) was much too high of a turnover risk to warrant running the offense. If you simply stopped pitching the ball, in that offense, then you are 1) wasting a body to serve as the pitch man, 2) allowing the defense to focus on two players instead of three. Indeed, there were some coaches, after getting burned in big games, that absolutely refused to pitch the ball and soon there after, the option offense went South. Laterals (similar to a pitch) might work, but they are a high risk play. It is a time tested truth.

Think of it like this. What if every time a running back failed to catch a short forward pass, it became a live fumble?