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????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:48 am
  • EverydayImRusselin wrote: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.
    NINEster
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1456
    Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 7:06 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:45 am
  • sdog1981 wrote: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.
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4241
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:55 am
  • Polaris wrote: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.
    User avatar
    UK_Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2460
    Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:08 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:57 am
  • 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.
    Russell has some stats that aren't Superb? Ow! Love his balls anyways!

    SC
    User avatar
    StoneCold
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2876
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:03 am
  • StoneCold wrote: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.
    User avatar
    UK_Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2460
    Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:08 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:07 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1804
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:16 am
  • Russ Willstrong wrote: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.
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 264
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:27 am
  • StoneCold wrote: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
    Russell has some stats that aren't Superb? Ow! Love his balls anyways!

    SC
    User avatar
    StoneCold
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2876
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:41 am
  • 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:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:48 am
  • Seymour wrote: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.
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 264
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:56 am
  • Mindsink wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote: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:
    "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: 401
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:04 am
  • 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
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6834
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:06 am
  • Mindsink wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote: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.
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3285
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:06 am
  • It's football, guys. It's not physics. ;)
    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: 16892
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:16 am
  • 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!
    User avatar
    Wartooth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1156
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:29 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
  • FidelisHawk wrote: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?
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 264
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:34 am
  • themunn wrote: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.

    themunn wrote: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.

    themunn wrote: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:
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 264
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:39 am
  • Smellyman wrote:
    sdog1981 wrote: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.
    User avatar
    HawkerD
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 457
    Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:33 am
    Location: Covington WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:42 am
  • Smellyman wrote:
    sdog1981 wrote: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:
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 236
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:45 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:50 am
  • FidelisHawk wrote: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:


    It's a lot easier to determine if the receiver was behind the passer than it is to determine if the ball went forward at least 1mm while both players were running during the lateral process (plus the ref's own speed and the illusion created by a parallax viewpoint). Most lateral plays you see are at the end of the game with guys throwing it backwards while practically stationary, when it's "clear and obvious". There's no way refs are going to be able to flag a lateral like last night's in real time, which is why they didn't in the first place.

    This is probably a rule that needs to be updated, since laterals have pretty much died as part of the running game due to the advent of the forward pass. For as infrequently as laterals happen due to their risk and difficulty, it's not like teams are going to start abusing it and racking up yards and scores from it if the rule changed from 'toward the goal line' to 'behind the player lateraling the ball'.
    Last edited by 253hawk on Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    253hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3076
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:36 am
    Location: PNW


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:50 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:
    Smellyman wrote:
    sdog1981 wrote: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:


    Nice!

    Another one -- The QB lobs a screen pass which gets caught by a gust of wind and lands on the ground, behind the receiver, and behind the point where the QB released the ball. The defense picks it up. Is that a fumble, or an incomplete pass?
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 264
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:57 am
  • My guess is it would have been reversed if challenged, looked like the ball traveled a yard forward.

    But that's on Petersen to throw the flag, can't put any of this on the Hawks, or even the refs. It was impossible for any of the back or sideline judges to be in perfect position as the play's going on to see the perfect angle of that pitch.
    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: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:59 am
  • Mindsink wrote:
    FidelisHawk wrote: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?


    Well, under your scenario a referee would have to decide, at his discretion, whether the lateral was forward, even, or backwards from his angle of view.

    There’s already enough of those type of rules, IMO, hand fighting or holding, incidental contact or PI, running your route or picking a defender, holding outside your frame or not.

    One more hardly helps, cut and dry rules take the determination out of the referees’ hands, and replay leaves little to doubt.
    "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: 401
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:00 am
  • This is getting funny. :snack:

    Image
    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: 16892
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:01 am
  • Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable? Just throwing another log on the fire, see if we can hit 2 hundy on post count in this one...
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 236
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:08 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:
    Smellyman wrote:
    sdog1981 wrote:How is this 2 pages? The Seahawks got a gift.

    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:


    Just in case you don't believe Sgt Largent....this is a fascinating video:


    Having said this, as it is currently defined in the rule-book last night's play would have been called a "Forward Pass". Glad it wasn't challenged because we might have lost the challenge...which would have been frustrating because I thought it was a true lateral watching it live and still do...and the "Spirit of the rule" has always been how it was interpreted last night.
    User avatar
    Chrome_Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 628
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:24 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:13 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable? Just throwing another log on the fire, see if we can hit 2 hundy on post count in this one...


    Good point. Pretty sure you are right and you cannot challenge a missed penalty anyway.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:17 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable? Just throwing another log on the fire, see if we can hit 2 hundy on post count in this one...


    Good point. Pretty sure you are right and you cannot challenge a missed penalty anyway.


    Would be the same as for the Richardson DPI I guess?
    "It's payback, Russell Wilson falling way back, in the draft, turn nothing into something"
    rossob
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 72
    Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:22 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:23 am
  • Mindsink wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:
    Smellyman wrote:
    sdog1981 wrote: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:


    Nice!

    Another one -- The QB lobs a screen pass which gets caught by a gust of wind and lands on the ground, behind the receiver, and behind the point where the QB released the ball. The defense picks it up. Is that a fumble, or an incomplete pass?

    Per rule, would be incomplete given the word "initial" in rule a, mod edit
    nIdahoSeahawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 390
    Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:46 pm
    Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:27 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable? Just throwing another log on the fire, see if we can hit 2 hundy on post count in this one...


    Good point. Pretty sure you are right and you cannot challenge a missed penalty anyway.


    Even if true, I doubt Peterson and his staff had time to research this rule in the span of the 8 seconds it took Russell and our offense to get to the line to snap the next play.

    You throw the flag on a game changing play like that, even if there's doubt. You just do.
    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: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:30 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable? Just throwing another log on the fire, see if we can hit 2 hundy on post count in this one...


    Good point. Pretty sure you are right and you cannot challenge a missed penalty anyway.


    That is an interesting question, I’ve seen challenges on backward passes before, but “hook and ladder” lateral running plays happen so infrequently it’s hard to say. Spot of the ball perhaps?
    "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: 401
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:32 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable? Just throwing another log on the fire, see if we can hit 2 hundy on post count in this one...


    Good point. Pretty sure you are right and you cannot challenge a missed penalty anyway.


    Even if true, I doubt Peterson and his staff had time to research this rule in the span of the 8 seconds it took Russell and our offense to get to the line to snap the next play.

    You throw the flag on a game changing play like that, even if there's doubt. You just do.


    I quoted this just for confusion. 2 Sgt's in the same thread is a historic moment. :snack: :twisted:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:34 am
  • A big call goes our way and people here are still arguing about it. :lol:
    User avatar
    12thbrah
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 713
    Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:42 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:34 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable? Just throwing another log on the fire, see if we can hit 2 hundy on post count in this one...


    Good point. Pretty sure you are right and you cannot challenge a missed penalty anyway.


    Even if true, I doubt Peterson and his staff had time to research this rule in the span of the 8 seconds it took Russell and our offense to get to the line to snap the next play.

    You throw the flag on a game changing play like that, even if there's doubt. You just do.


    I quoted this just for confusion. 2 Sgt's in the same thread is a historic moment. :snack: :twisted:


    Now you did it Seymour, you just punctured the space time continuum.
    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: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:35 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable? Just throwing another log on the fire, see if we can hit 2 hundy on post count in this one...


    Good point. Pretty sure you are right and you cannot challenge a missed penalty anyway.


    Even if true, I doubt Peterson and his staff had time to research this rule in the span of the 8 seconds it took Russell and our offense to get to the line to snap the next play.

    You throw the flag on a game changing play like that, even if there's doubt. You just do.


    I quoted this just for confusion. 2 Sgt's in the same thread is a historic moment. :snack: :twisted:


    We quite often have different takes which really blows the lids off allot of fellow posters :3-1:
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 236
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:38 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Good point. Pretty sure you are right and you cannot challenge a missed penalty anyway.


    Even if true, I doubt Peterson and his staff had time to research this rule in the span of the 8 seconds it took Russell and our offense to get to the line to snap the next play.

    You throw the flag on a game changing play like that, even if there's doubt. You just do.


    I quoted this just for confusion. 2 Sgt's in the same thread is a historic moment. :snack: :twisted:


    Now you did it Seymour, you just punctured the space time continuum.


    Excellent!

    My work is done here. :mrgreen:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:48 am
  • UK_Seahawk wrote:
    StoneCold wrote: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.

    I'm kind of surprised they didn't challenge it just for the hell of it. I mean, that play was like 3rd and 8 from Seattle's 40-yard line. Wilson's scramble + Davis' additional yardage after brought them to around the Philly 35. It was (if I remember right) a 17-10 score and around halfway through the 4th quarter. This came at a crucial moment in the game, because if it were reversed we would've punted back to Philly and they would've taken had possession in a one-score game. It's not uncommon to see coaches take "hail mary" challenges late in games like that.

    On the other hand, I can totally see how the replay booth upstairs didn't think it was worth challenging after only a couple quick glances at it. It took the NBC crew many, many times through in slow motion to deem it an illegal forward pass.

    Really clever heads up play by Wilson, but we definitely got away with one.
    User avatar
    JimmyG
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 215
    Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:42 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:51 am
  • It is a forward pass if:
    (a) the ball INITIALLY moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent’s goal line) after leaving the passer’s hand(s); or
    (b) the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else at a point that is nearer the opponent’s goal line than the point at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand(s).

    Clearing Russell was in front of Davis, the ball could not INITIALLY move forward. Momentum of the play naturally has both players as well as the ball moving forward AFTER the initial lateral. If not, you could never have a QB option because physics would not allow it. This was clearly a lateral and not a forward pass by rule not illegal and thus why was never in question by the refs.
    Schadie001
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 717
    Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:32 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:53 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable?


      Scoring plays
      Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted
      Runner/receiver out of bounds
      Recovery of a loose ball in or out of bounds
      Touching of a forward pass, either by an ineligible receiver or a defensive player
      Quarterback pass or fumble
      Illegal forward pass
      Forward or backward pass
      Runner ruled not down by contact
      Forward progress in regard to a first down
      Touching of a kick
      Other plays involving placement of the football
      Whether a legal number of players is on the field at the time of the snap
    Jeremy517
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 218
    Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:51 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:59 am
  • Jeremy517 wrote:
    Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable?


      Scoring plays
      Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted
      Runner/receiver out of bounds
      Recovery of a loose ball in or out of bounds
      Touching of a forward pass, either by an ineligible receiver or a defensive player
      Quarterback pass or fumble
      Illegal forward pass
      Forward or backward pass
      Runner ruled not down by contact
      Forward progress in regard to a first down
      Touching of a kick
      Other plays involving placement of the football
      Whether a legal number of players is on the field at the time of the snap


    There we go, I knew it would need to be on the exceptions list, just wasn't sure if it was.
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 236
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:05 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:Outside of the legality of the play, throwing a challenge flag would be asking for a review of an uncalled penalty. Anyone have the official list of what is and isn't reviewable? Just throwing another log on the fire, see if we can hit 2 hundy on post count in this one...


    This is a point I havent thought about. As there was no penalty, no call, how can "no call" be challenged. You cant throw a red flag if you see an opposing offensive lineman hold your pass rushers correct? I dont think the red flag would have mattered as there was no call to challenge. If a flag would have been thrown that it was a forward pass and we would have challenged it saying it was a lateral, we would have lost.

    The ball was lateralled on the 47 and caught on the 48. That is forward by rule. Keep it simple and this rule makes it easy to review and make a correct call.

    If you were to do like some want in this thread and change it to only the direction of the pass from point of origin compared to right angle perpendicular to the length of the field regardless of actual movement of the ball in relation to distance from the goal lines, then you would just add another rule to an already overloaded rulebook.

    No need to make any changes and convolute a rule that works just fine.

    We got away with a forward pass. We have plenty of calls that don't go our way, so take it and move on.

    https://www.fieldgulls.com/2017/12/3/16732524/rule-explanation-russell-wilson-seattle-seahawks-philadelphia-eagles-lateral-forward-pass
    Last edited by johnnyfever on Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    johnnyfever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 899
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:38 pm
    Location: Spokane


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:06 am
  • Schadie001 wrote:It is a forward pass if:
    (a) the ball INITIALLY moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent’s goal line) after leaving the passer’s hand(s); or
    (b) the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else at a point that is nearer the opponent’s goal line than the point at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand(s).

    Clearing Russell was in front of Davis, the ball could not INITIALLY move forward. Momentum of the play naturally has both players as well as the ball moving forward AFTER the initial lateral. If not, you could never have a QB option because physics would not allow it. This was clearly a lateral and not a forward pass by rule not illegal and thus why was never in question by the refs.


    This has been brought up a few times, but doesn't apply here as the Option play is behind the line of scrimmage. All passes are legal behind the line of scrimmage. What can come into play is whether a dropped pass behind the line of scrimmage is a live ball. In that case the back or forward nature of the pass/toss is very important. Back is live, Forward, incomplete pass.
    Russell has some stats that aren't Superb? Ow! Love his balls anyways!

    SC
    User avatar
    StoneCold
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2876
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:13 am
  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:
    FidelisHawk wrote: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?


    Well, under your scenario a referee would have to decide, at his discretion, whether the lateral was forward, even, or backwards from his angle of view.

    There’s already enough of those type of rules, IMO, hand fighting or holding, incidental contact or PI, running your route or picking a defender, holding outside your frame or not.

    One more hardly helps, cut and dry rules take the determination out of the referees’ hands, and replay leaves little to doubt.


    See 253Hawk's response.
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 264
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:45 am


  • :snack:
    User avatar
    hawknation2017
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1170
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:44 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:48 am
  • I'm actually ok with the play, sometimes you just have to go by the eye test.

    Kinda like a catch. If it looks like a catch, then hey, its a catch. This is a huge problem with the NFL now a days, we analyze it into oblivion, we micro manage it to death. We're at a stage where no one actually knows what a catch is.

    By the eye test in real time, at real speed, it was fine..... he pitched it to a player two yards behind him. To me that's within the spirit of the rule, and I'm ok with that. :Dunno:
    Attachments
    Lateral.JPG
    Lateral.JPG (26.14 KiB) Viewed 126 times
    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: 6585
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:53 am
  • It was a forward pass, Eagles should have challenged and would have won.

    The crazy thing is Russ would have run for the 1st down anyway. If you watch where he lands after he is tackled (because the Eagles defender didn't know Russ had ditched the ball), he still gets past the line to gain because of how he rolls over the defender. So he didn't even need to lateral the ball to get the 1st.
    Image
    Radish and Cheinhill — Gone, but not forgotten
    User avatar
    HawkFan72
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 16153
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
    Location: Antioch, CA


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:58 am
  • HawkFan72 wrote:It was a forward pass, Eagles should have challenged and would have won.

    The crazy thing is Russ would have run for the 1st down anyway. If you watch where he lands after he is tackled (because the Eagles defender didn't know Russ had ditched the ball), he still gets past the line to gain because of how he rolls over the defender. So he didn't even need to lateral the ball to get the 1st.

    What would they challenge? there was no flag to challenge. I might be wrong, but I don't see how you can throw a red flag for something on the field that happened that wasn't called (holding, PI, unsportsmanlike etc).
    User avatar
    johnnyfever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 899
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:38 pm
    Location: Spokane


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:06 am
  • johnnyfever wrote:
    HawkFan72 wrote:It was a forward pass, Eagles should have challenged and would have won.

    The crazy thing is Russ would have run for the 1st down anyway. If you watch where he lands after he is tackled (because the Eagles defender didn't know Russ had ditched the ball), he still gets past the line to gain because of how he rolls over the defender. So he didn't even need to lateral the ball to get the 1st.

    What would they challenge? there was no flag to challenge. I might be wrong, but I don't see how you can throw a red flag for something on the field that happened that wasn't called (holding, PI, unsportsmanlike etc).


    They certainly could challenge that play. In fact, you typically can’t challenge the plays you referenced as challengeable.
    User avatar
    Hawk Finn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1333
    Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:44 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:08 am
  • hawknation2017 wrote:

    :snack:


    WTF?

    "Pete Carroll say son @710ESPNSeattle has calls into Neil deGrasse Tyson"

    I'm at a total loss as to what this means. Looks like randomly pieced together words.

    "Pete Carroll write daughter @710espnseattle has balls onto Neil Patrick Harris" -- Equally incoherent.
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 264
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:55 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information