Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Ok....the lateral????

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:51 pm
  • Our Man in Chicago wrote:
    mikeak wrote:^ yeah that will be a fine replay review......should only take 20 minutes to determine in cases where the ball is barely pitched backwards


    The rule as currently stated undergoes the same degree of replay scrutiny.


    No - the rule as currently stated has a hashmark or close to one where it was pitched and one where it is caught. You can compare two FIXED points on the ground and it is an easy call

    Example -- look at Seahawks - Eagles this past week......
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6834
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Russell’s lateral
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:52 pm

Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:55 pm
  • Our Man in Chicago wrote:
    mikeak wrote:^ yeah that will be a fine replay review......should only take 20 minutes to determine in cases where the ball is barely pitched backwards


    The rule as currently stated undergoes the same degree of replay scrutiny.


    Not really as the rule is now, Player A laterals at the 47 yd line, the ball touches Player B at the 48, closer to the endzone; as such it’s a forward pass and not legal not much more scrutiny needed.

    Certainly not as much as determining if the lateral was backwards, sidewards or slightly forwards.

    I think there will be no changes made by the rules committee. Should a play like this ever occur again, a clever coach, will challenge it, even if it looks legal, knowing what is now been discovered.

    Just in case. :lol:
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 393
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:32 pm

Re: Russell’s lateral
Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:38 pm
  • pugs1 wrote:https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/938155412347588610

    Yeah what he said...


    You don't argue with Neil Degrasse Tyson. The last person who argued with him was shot into a black hole with a high powered t-shirt cannon, never to be seen again.

    Mike Pereira also said today on Twitter that the play was a reviewable play. So who cares if it was legal or not, Peterson should have challenged. THE END!
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12441
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Russell’s lateral
Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:50 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote: Peterson should have challenged. THE END!


    This.

    Also, that's a really stupid way to define a forward pass as has been demonstrated several times in this thread.
    User avatar
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2486
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:38 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:51 pm
  • When the NFL rule was written, either it was expected the player lateraling to be stationary or they did not consider the physics involved when the player lateraling was in motion.

    I think the visual of the player lateraling the ball over his head and it being deemed a forward pass under the NFL rules shows the absurdity of the NFL rule.
    User avatar
    HawkerD
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 453
    Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:33 am
    Location: Covington WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:51 pm
  • adeltaY wrote:Here's a great article: https://www.wired.com/story/eagles-vs-s ... backwards/

    The gif at the bottom clearly shows it's a forward pass. Frames of reference, like Neil mentions in his tweet.


    Neil stole it from my post on page 4... :mrgreen:
    User avatar
    GeekHawk
    US Navy ET Nuc
     
    Posts: 6066
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:29 pm
    Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:59 pm
  • So the hawks all access vs eagles video in that thread......difference angle than the same exact one your all showing. And that Angle, from Russell side makes it look legit without any argument vs the “mike Davis side angle” we all see here
    Conference Championship: NFC: 2005, 2013, 2014
    Division Campionship: AFC West: 1988, 1999 NFC West: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014
    Superbowl Championship: 2013 XLVIII Final Score: Sea 43 Den 8

    The Radish
    Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:10 pm: Please don't offend The Fonz like that. :roll:
    :les:
    User avatar
    Exittium
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2916
    Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:53 am
    Location: Spokane, WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:08 pm
  • Has the NFL actually come out and said it should have been ruled a forward pass? Given the fact that the Eagles didn't challenge and even the NFL Network replays don't mention it as being a forward pass leads me to believe that the officials are taught to interpret those types of plays on the direction the ball was thrown and not on the movement caused by the forward moving player. I am of the belief that had they challenged it wouldn't have changed the call.

    When judging a forward pass vs fumble the direction of the ball has nothing to do with it, only the direction of the arm, so it's altogether possible that the officials use the direction of the pass to guide them on laterals. That would make the most sense
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 22013
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:23 pm
  • The NFL hasn't, but good 'ol Mike Pereira has.





    Keep in mind this is the same league that says that the entire ball can be across the LOS when it is thrown downfield so long as the pinky nail on your trailing arm or the last lug on the heel of your cleat is still on it.
    User avatar
    253hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3072
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:36 am
    Location: PNW


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:24 pm
  • http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=143185

    Thie angle show ln in this thread in the videoand makes it look entirely different and completely legal
    Conference Championship: NFC: 2005, 2013, 2014
    Division Campionship: AFC West: 1988, 1999 NFC West: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014
    Superbowl Championship: 2013 XLVIII Final Score: Sea 43 Den 8

    The Radish
    Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:10 pm: Please don't offend The Fonz like that. :roll:
    :les:
    User avatar
    Exittium
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2916
    Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:53 am
    Location: Spokane, WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:58 pm
  • 253hawk wrote:But the word 'lateral' literally means...

    verb
    1. throw (a football) in a sideways or backward direction.

    If it's not sideways, it's just a pitch, toss, or shovel pass.


    (my emphasis in bold above)

    There are no truly to-the-micron dead-lateral, non-backwards passes unless we're rounding to the nearest half-yard. I'm simply talking about the gesture of what the NFL terms a backwards-pass lateral, which Wilson, and hundreds of QBs before him, clearly fulfilled.

    Either way, a change in nomenclature should occur. Wilson's play should not be termed a "forward pass," as if the ball was released in a forward direction. It was a backwards pass that, due to Galilean Transformation, eventually traveled ahead of its release.
    Seahawks fan since Topps 1985.
    User avatar
    Our Man in Chicago
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1386
    Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:16 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:07 pm
  • Hawkstorian wrote: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.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3832
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:09 pm
  • Hawkstorian wrote:
    Hawkstorian wrote: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.


    Ok, fine. I call BS - you're wrong.

    Those stats are from this year alone, not every game in history.
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1570
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:08 pm
  • 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.
    CASeahawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 127
    Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:55 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:08 pm
  • 5 pages now. Can we get it to 6? :snack:

    BTW, everybody knows there is no such thing as a "lateral" pass in the rulebook, right. It's either a forward pass or a backwards pass.

    ;)
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 16874
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:47 am
  • sutz wrote:5 pages now. Can we get it to 6? :snack:

    BTW, everybody knows there is no such thing as a "lateral" pass in the rulebook, right. It's either a forward pass or a backwards pass.

    ;)



    Let's ask some expert scientists to weigh in on the idea.....
    User avatar
    Sox-n-Hawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 574
    Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:26 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:18 am
  • sutz wrote:5 pages now. Can we get it to 6? :snack:

    BTW, everybody knows there is no such thing as a "lateral" pass in the rulebook, right. It's either a forward pass or a backwards pass.

    ;)
    Going forward, the NFL should literally take a page out of the CFL rulebook, define a lateral pass and clear up this ambiguity.
    User avatar
    Palmegranite
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 222
    Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:53 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:33 am
  • HawkerD wrote:I think the visual of the player lateraling the ball over his head and it being deemed a forward pass under the NFL rules shows the absurdity of the NFL rule.


    This x 1000
    User avatar
    UK_Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2457
    Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:08 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:58 am
  • 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.
    cymatica
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1029
    Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:40 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:29 am
  • Hawkstorian wrote:
    Hawkstorian wrote: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?
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 16634
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:32 am
  • CASeahawk wrote: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 ......

    :{)
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 16634
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:38 am
  • pmedic920 wrote:
    CASeahawk wrote: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.
    Josea16
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1198
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:27 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:55 am
  • 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
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 12496
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:32 am

Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:56 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:Image


    Perfect.
    Long you live and high you fly, and smiles you’ll give and tears you’ll cry, and all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6577
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:06 am
  • Josea16 wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:
    CASeahawk wrote: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:
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 393
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:31 am
  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    Josea16 wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:
    CASeahawk wrote: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.
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 215
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:32 am
  • 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.
    Mad Dog
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 179
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:12 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:59 am
  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    Josea16 wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:
    CASeahawk wrote: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.
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 16634
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:02 am
  • pmedic920 wrote:
    FidelisHawk wrote:
    Josea16 wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:
    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:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3150
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:33 am
  • 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. :Dunno:
    Long you live and high you fly, and smiles you’ll give and tears you’ll cry, and all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6577
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:35 am
  • Mad Dog wrote: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.
    User avatar
    253hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3072
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:36 am
    Location: PNW


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:46 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:
    FidelisHawk wrote:
    Josea16 wrote: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
    :{)
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 16634
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:10 pm
  • cymatica wrote: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!
    Q: “What is your thing?”
    A: “Lay back, kick back, mind my business, stay in my own lane.”
    User avatar
    VivaEfrenHerrera
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1452
    Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:03 pm
    Location: Mudbone's rumpus room


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:21 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote: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.
    Josea16
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1198
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:27 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:58 am
  • pmedic920 wrote:
    FidelisHawk wrote:
    Josea16 wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:
    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…..
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 393
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:10 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:
    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.
    ;)
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 393
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:16 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    253hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3072
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:36 am
    Location: PNW


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:14 am
  • 253hawk wrote: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.
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 393
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:38 am
  • 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???'...
    Last edited by keasley45 on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
    keasley45
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 131
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm
    Location: Cockeysville, Md


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:57 am
  • Watch the replay, he was gonna' have the first down anyway. And there isn't enough to overturn it regardless.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6883
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:55 am
  • twisted_steel2 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:Image


    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.
    HawkRiderFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 513
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:10 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:00 pm
  • keasley45 wrote: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:
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 393
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:25 pm
  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    keasley45 wrote: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.
    keasley45
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 131
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm
    Location: Cockeysville, Md


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:29 pm
  • 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.
    Seahawks fan since Topps 1985.
    User avatar
    Our Man in Chicago
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1386
    Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:16 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:37 pm
  • 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.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6883
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:44 pm
  • keasley45 wrote:
    FidelisHawk wrote:
    keasley45 wrote: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.
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 393
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:36 pm
  • Image
    User avatar
    Sox-n-Hawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 574
    Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:26 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:39 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online