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 11:11 am
  • twisted_steel2 wrote: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:


    Agree 100%
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 255
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:12 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.


    I doubt he would make that. He was nailed right after the toss short and you can see the yellow line to gain here.
    Attachments
    Wilson-Run.jpg
    Wilson-Run.jpg (57.46 KiB) Viewed 560 times
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3150
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:12 am
  • Yeah, you can't challenge penalty flags. Maybe intentional grounding penalties is an exception?
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 885
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:21 am
  • https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg

    Rugby did all the research for us. Not saying this is how the rule is written, but this is how I've seen it interpreted in all my years watching and playing, and in my opinion, how it definitely should be defined in American Football as well.
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 215
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:33 am
  • Perfect video illustration.

    And since american football gets its roots from rugby, this is how it should be.
    User avatar
    253hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3072
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:36 am
    Location: PNW


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:34 am
  • That wasn't forward

    Sincerely
    All Tennessee Titans players in the Music City Miracle game
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6834
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:36 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg

    Rugby did all the research for us. Not saying this is how the rule is written, but this is how I've seen it interpreted in all my years watching and playing, and in my opinion, how it definitely should be defined in American Football as well.


    Interesting. :2thumbs:

    The way some are interpreting the rules (and they showed it in the video). You could throw the ball backwards over your head to a player trailing your several yards behind you. And people would still call it a forward pass. :D
    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????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:41 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.


    Pretty incredible to quote two items and just read one

    (b) the ball first strikes ....a player ... nearer the opponent’s goal line than the point at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand(s)

    I don't disagree with it being pitched backwards, I don't disagree about why it travels forward

    I just don't understand how people can have a discussion about all that stuff and try to argue that it is a lateral pass according to the ONE thing that means something here. The NFL rule book

    Want a discussion about changing the rules - fine - but the rules are clear and ACCORDING TO THE RULES it was forward

    Eagles didn't challenge, Seattle snaps ball - so deemed legal by officials - also in the rules
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6834
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:51 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg

    Rugby did all the research for us. Not saying this is how the rule is written, but this is how I've seen it interpreted in all my years watching and playing, and in my opinion, how it definitely should be defined in American Football as well.


    Thank you so much for that link. That is an outstanding explanation. Especially the part where he throws it over his shoulder which is clearly a lateral but lands past the point of where he threw it.


    https://streamable.com/zpz53 (part of video I'm referring to)
    User avatar
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1692
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:48 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:07 pm
  • Mindsink wrote:
    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.


    Perhaps you are unaware that Neil deGrasse Tyson is a well respected physicist?
    Russell has some stats that aren't Superb? Ow! Love his balls anyways!

    SC
    User avatar
    StoneCold
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2848
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:18 pm
  • StoneCold wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:
    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.


    Perhaps you are unaware that Neil deGrasse Tyson is a well respected physicist?


    Yup. I had no idea. I thought maybe he was some actor or recording artist.

    Still doesn't explain the rest of the sentence though. But now I know it's in reference to the lateral.
    User avatar
    Mindsink
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 255
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:22 pm
  • Hawk Finn wrote:
    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.

    That was my point, that you CANT challenge the things I listed, and you for sure can't challenge them if no fould was called.

    My point is no yellow flag was thrown, so how can anything be challenged if there was no foul called? If they had thrown a flag for a forward pass, then you could challenge that call. But with no flag thrown, you cant throw the red flag and ask them to review the tape to see if they can retroactively throw a flag. Otherwise, coaches could throw a red flag every play if they see a fould commited that wasnt caught by the officials.

    If I'm wrong as maybe there is a rule for challenges pertaining to completed passes I'm unaware, please set me straight.
    User avatar
    johnnyfever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 875
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:38 pm
    Location: Spokane


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:36 pm
  • johnnyfever wrote:
    Hawk Finn wrote:
    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.

    That was my point, that you CANT challenge the things I listed, and you for sure can't challenge them if no fould was called.

    My point is no yellow flag was thrown, so how can anything be challenged if there was no foul called? If they had thrown a flag for a forward pass, then you could challenge that call. But with no flag thrown, you cant throw the red flag and ask them to review the tape to see if they can retroactively throw a flag. Otherwise, coaches could throw a red flag every play if they see a fould commited that wasnt caught by the officials.

    If I'm wrong as maybe there is a rule for challenges pertaining to completed passes I'm unaware, please set me straight.


    They may have been able to challenge the spot of the ball.
    Russell has some stats that aren't Superb? Ow! Love his balls anyways!

    SC
    User avatar
    StoneCold
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2848
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:36 pm
  • According to Pederson, the Eagles head coach, he could have challenged it, but HE thought it was a legit lateral and by the time he realized it wasn't, Seattle was already running another play. He also admitted he was afraid of losing a T.O. and his last challenge over a play that he thought he would lose.
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2021
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:38 pm
  • Mindsink wrote:
    StoneCold wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:
    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.


    Perhaps you are unaware that Neil deGrasse Tyson is a well respected physicist?


    Yup. I had no idea. I thought maybe he was some actor or recording artist.

    Still doesn't explain the rest of the sentence though. But now I know it's in reference to the lateral.


    Bob is saying Pete was serious about asking Neil to explain why it was a legal lateral.

    I hope he does as it would be funny as hell to hear him explain it one way or the other. I follow him on Twitter and he's quite the wit.
    Russell has some stats that aren't Superb? Ow! Love his balls anyways!

    SC
    User avatar
    StoneCold
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2848
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:29 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:48 pm
  • StoneCold wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:
    StoneCold wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:
    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.


    Perhaps you are unaware that Neil deGrasse Tyson is a well respected physicist?


    Yup. I had no idea. I thought maybe he was some actor or recording artist.

    Still doesn't explain the rest of the sentence though. But now I know it's in reference to the lateral.


    Bob is saying Pete was serious about asking Neil to explain why it was a legal lateral.

    I hope he does as it would be funny as hell to hear him explain it one way or the other. I follow him on Twitter and he's quite the wit.


    Maybe he will use Schroedingers cat as a reference point. This was the play that was neither a lateral nor a pass yet it was both.
    Go Hawks!
    oldhawkfan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1391
    Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:06 pm
    Location: Spokane


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:18 pm
  • jmahon316 wrote:Hey what about the facemask that wasn't called on PRich? Oh wait he's a SEAHAWK that got screwed over, nevermind.


    This is exactly what I was thinking. The Philly Media made a big deal about the lateral but they said nothing...NOTHING about this obvious miss that the refs had when PRich got facemasked on the pass.

    Bottom line is that these things happen in a football game. If you lose because one call did not go your way, then you were not good enough to win. Period.

    That being said, the lateral was obviously a forward pass, but it's up to the Eagles to challenge it. They didn't, so quit crying. It should be a non-issue.
    Fire Tom Cable
    User avatar
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1265
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:45 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:22 pm
  • xgeoff wrote:
    jmahon316 wrote:Hey what about the facemask that wasn't called on PRich? Oh wait he's a SEAHAWK that got screwed over, nevermind.


    This is exactly what I was thinking. The Philly Media made a big deal about the lateral but they said nothing...NOTHING about this obvious miss that the refs had when PRich got facemasked on the pass.

    Bottom line is that these things happen in a football game. If you lose because one call did not go your way, then you were not good enough to win. Period.

    That being said, the lateral was obviously a forward pass, but it's up to the Eagles to challenge it. They didn't, so quit crying. It should be a non-issue.


    Just reading some reactions on Twitter and Reddit, these Iggles fans have been having a cake walk of a season so far, if this game and the officiating is causing them to have a meltdown.

    This is nothing, that game was a 2 or 3 out of 10 in the realm of being screwed over by the football gods.
    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????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:36 pm
  • Mindsink wrote:Yup. I had no idea. I thought maybe he was some actor or recording artist.

    Still doesn't explain the rest of the sentence though. But now I know it's in reference to the lateral.


    After the Bengals game here in OT where they kicked the game-winner off the post, he explained the coriolis effect helping by moving about 1/3 of an inch between the time the ball was kicked and when it hit the post. He's also given talks here locally and visited VMAC last year for a practice IIRC. Carroll being the celeb-friendly guy he is probably hit him up to explain what the science is behind the lateral going both forward and backwards at the same time.
    User avatar
    253hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3072
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:36 am
    Location: PNW


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:00 pm
  • Sgt Largent wrote:https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg

    Rugby did all the research for us. Not saying this is how the rule is written, but this is how I've seen it interpreted in all my years watching and playing, and in my opinion, how it definitely should be defined in American Football as well.

    From what I saw in this video I would stand on the legal lateral side. That video hits the mark when it reviews the over the head lateral. But this is America, where we have to have our own spin on rules governed by ancient sports. And you know how the NFL is. I can hear the debate now.

    It's ruled relative to the players positions to one another.

    No, it's ruled by the balls path relative to the ground.

    :snack:
    ~ HOLY CATFISH ~
    User avatar
    MD5eahawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 508
    Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:10 pm
    Location: Baltimore, Maryland


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:18 pm
  • twisted_steel2 wrote:
    xgeoff wrote:
    jmahon316 wrote:Hey what about the facemask that wasn't called on PRich? Oh wait he's a SEAHAWK that got screwed over, nevermind.


    This is exactly what I was thinking. The Philly Media made a big deal about the lateral but they said nothing...NOTHING about this obvious miss that the refs had when PRich got facemasked on the pass.

    Bottom line is that these things happen in a football game. If you lose because one call did not go your way, then you were not good enough to win. Period.

    That being said, the lateral was obviously a forward pass, but it's up to the Eagles to challenge it. They didn't, so quit crying. It should be a non-issue.


    Just reading some reactions on Twitter and Reddit, these Iggles fans have been having a cake walk of a season so far, if this game and the officiating is causing them to have a meltdown.

    This is nothing, that game was a 2 or 3 out of 10 in the realm of being screwed over by the football gods.


    Yep. Just about everyone but the Eagles and the Eagles' Fans knew they have had an easy schedule so far. They should view this as a wakeup call that they will need to play better against better teams. They have no idea what being screwed by the refs is really like. Somebody send them some video from Super Bowl XL. Jeez.
    Fire Tom Cable
    User avatar
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1265
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:45 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:26 pm
  • If you examine it carefully you will see that it was clearly back and to the left.

    Back and to the left

    Back and to the left

    Back and to the left
    Now a guppy driver. Loving the Hawks with my bro Nanomoz for over 30 years
    User avatar
    rjdriver
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1769
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:11 am
    Location: Utah


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:40 pm
  • Wow, a close call finally goes the Seahawks way and then everyone loses their minds. How about we look at the holding penalties that were never called Lane Johnson against Michael Bennett. Bottom line if a team tries to pin their loss on one call or non-call they left too many opportunities on the field.


    Image
    User avatar
    Sox-n-Hawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 574
    Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:26 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:10 pm
  • Mindsink wrote:
    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.

    Allow me to translate:

    Pete Carroll's son has telephoned famous physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who may be able to provide an explanation.
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1869
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:42 pm
  • Sgt Largent wrote:https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg

    Rugby did all the research for us. Not saying this is how the rule is written, but this is how I've seen it interpreted in all my years watching and playing, and in my opinion, how it definitely should be defined in American Football as well.


    Yup. Illegal forward pass is never called in this situation, at least not by any competent referee, when the pass is thrown backward but is carried slightly forward by its momentum. The force that was acted upon the ball was backward to a trailing player.
    User avatar
    hawknation2017
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1081
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:44 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:57 am
  • Why don't we discuss a truly egregious call where Shaq Griffin was called for holding, but the replay showed no holding and the WR striking Griffin in the head near half a dozen times.
    TransGenderHawkFan
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 197
    Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:05 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:36 am
  • KiwiHawk wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:
    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.

    Allow me to translate:

    Pete Carroll's son has telephoned famous physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who may be able to provide an explanation.


    I believe Condotta just misplaced a blank space and it should read "Pete Carroll says on..."
    "It's payback, Russell Wilson falling way back, in the draft, turn nothing into something"
    rossob
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 61
    Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:22 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:26 am
  • NFL is notorious for having rules that defy physics. The lateral is no different. Russ threw the ball behind him. Physics carried it forward. It should be legal but nitpickers will always try to interpret things by the letter of the law rather than the meaning of the law. It's like getting a speeding ticket for going 1 mph over the speed limit.
    Or like penalizing KJ Wright for illegal touching on on a ball already going out of bounds in the end zone.

    Some things are technically against the rules but should be allowed.
    Mad Dog
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 179
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:12 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:01 am
  • The NFL rule is poorly written and should be changed to better align with the Rugby rule.

    When analyzing the motion of objects using the laws of Physics, one must first choose a frame of reference.

    The intent of the Rugby rule establishes, in essence, the frame of reference being relative to the position of the two players at the time of the release of the ball... and aligns with the first part of the NFL rule.

    The problem arises because the second part of the NFL rule uses a different frame of reference, namely it switches from the Rugby version (relative to the position of the players at release) to the position of the ball when released and when caught relative to the position on the field.

    A lot people here have used the words "forward momentum" when explaining their take on what happened. Technically, they should be using the terms "relative and absolute velocity". Yes, the ball has momentum but momentum doesn't explain the Physics involved.

    Since Russ is running with the ball, he and the ball together have a relative velocity in the direction of the opponent's goal line (we'll establish that direction to be positive (+) in our frame of reference... the speed is not in question... just the direction of the velocity). And when the ball leaves Russ's hand, the velocity of the ball relative to the players is negative (-), that is, away from the opponent's goal line. That is why the play looks legit.

    But... when determining the absolute velocity of the ball, both components of the ball in motion must be mathematically taken into account... the one towards the opponent's goal line (Russ running with the ball at the time of the release) and the one away from it (the flip backs towards Davis who is running behind and to the side of Russ).

    The velocity of the ball while in Russ's hand going toward the opponent's goal line is slightly greater than the velocity of the ball tossed backwards towards Davis... that difference in velocity, taking into account how many seconds the ball was in flight, is why the ball travels forward approximately one yard after leaving Russ's hand.

    Hope that makes sense.

    Signed, retired Boeing engineer with a BS in Mechanical Engineering.
    Superbowl XLVIII Champions..."Can't keep everyone."
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3913
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:13 am
  • "Easiest" way to fix this is put the entire field on a giant treadmill. When the QB pitches the ball to the runner, turn it on the same speed they are running and now the ball does not move closer to the opposing teams goal when it's lateraled behind the QB.

    Just don't forget to turn it off when the RB catches the ball. :mrgreen:

    Image
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3150
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:09 am
  • Let's say the ball is clearly initially thrown backwards and a hurricane force gust of wind suddenly changes the backward direction and pushes it beyond the initial release point and into the arms of a receiver. What say you NFL rule?
    Image
    User avatar
    HawkFreak
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 211
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:31 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:21 am
  • Keep going. We can get this thread about nothing to 5 pages yet.

    :snack:
    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????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:06 am
  • onanygivensunday wrote:The NFL rule is poorly written and should be changed to better align with the Rugby rule.

    .


    No -- the rule is very clearly written. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

    You may separately dislike the rule from a scientific standpoint. That would make it a bad rule in your opinion.

    Kind of like not liking that if you dive at a QB you get flagged or if you get a late hit on the QB it can negate an interception even though they were unrelated

    Those are beliefs that the rule is bad - not that the rule is written poorly
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6834
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:49 am
  • mikeak wrote:
    onanygivensunday wrote:The NFL rule is poorly written and should be changed to better align with the Rugby rule.

    .


    No -- the rule is very clearly written. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

    You may separately dislike the rule from a scientific standpoint. That would make it a bad rule in your opinion.

    Kind of like not liking that if you dive at a QB you get flagged or if you get a late hit on the QB it can negate an interception even though they were unrelated

    Those are beliefs that the rule is bad - not that the rule is written poorly


    I find this discussion interesting in the fact that, as fans, we will complain about referees who must make judgement calls on fouls, where the rule is ambiguous, Pass Interference, Illegal Pick, Holding and others.

    Then complain a rule, that is very specific and clear, should be changed to make it more ambiguous and force the referee to make another judgement call.

    Of course ALL rules, fouls, judgments, and opinions that go against the Seahawks are, by definition, BAD.
    "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 11:20 am
  • Who fricken cares. The Eagles were stupid not to challenge. In real time it looked legal, you can only tell in slow motion. Game, set, match Hawks

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    User avatar
    Diezel Dawg
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 503
    Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:50 am


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:30 am
  • We got away with one, but Pederson should have challenged. Sorry not sorry *shrug*
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11232
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:34 am
  • The play in question was clearly a forward pass as defined by current rules, and the Seahawks thus benefited from the lack of an infraction call. This is not seriously in question. The rules governing a lateral, however, should be subject for reassessment in light of current technological realities.

    The lateral option exists in order to differentiate from a forward or shovel pass. In the NFL, a lateral when the pitcher is in motion is generally a play-extender as opposed to a play solely in its own right; pro defenses are too fast for most hook-and-ladder plays and direct yardage would otherwise be negative or essentially neutral. In this way, the spirit of the lateral play — on display this past Sunday night — is the same as it was when the game began.

    If the play in question had featured a hoofing Charlie Conerly tossing a ball to a trailing Alex Webster in 1955, it would have been a clear lateral to the eyes of all viewers, relative and absolute velocity be damned. Conerly's intent would have been the same as Wilson's. But we don't live in 1955. In that year, Jackie Robinson was tagged out at home by Yogi Berra.

    The lateral rule as it exists fails to take into account the reality of a player in motion, and this, as has been stated upthread, is exacerbated by modern replay technology. As few appreciate a baseball manager challenging a stolen base on the pedantic notion that a runner might have left a bag for a microsecond while a tag was applied, rules should be changed to suit the game being played the "right way."

    I'll offer this: the majority of all pitcher-in-motion laterals in NFL history have also been "illegal forward passes." What should take precedence for a rules-committee reassessment are these two factors: if the pitch receiver (Davis) was clearly trailing the pitcher (Wilson) when the pitch occurred, and that the pitch itself was not a forward motion.
    Last edited by Our Man in Chicago on Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
    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 11:51 am
  • Sgt Largent wrote:https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg

    Rugby did all the research for us. Not saying this is how the rule is written, but this is how I've seen it interpreted in all my years watching and playing, and in my opinion, how it definitely should be defined in American Football as well.


    That video does an excellent job of describing the situation. Unfortunately it's not in alignment with the NFL rules.

    I'm seeing a rule change coming up for next year!! Make the determination based on the positioning of the players not the stationary field.
    User avatar
    Barakas
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 368
    Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:32 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:00 pm
  • MD5eahawks wrote:<snip>
    I can hear the debate now.

    It's ruled relative to the players positions to one another.

    No, it's ruled by the balls path relative to the ground.

    :snack:


    This is where Neil DeGrasse Tyson comes in. In physics it's called 'frame of reference'. For instance, if you're in a car moving at 30 mph, and behind you is a car moving at 35 mph, then in your frame of reference the car behind you is moving forward at 5 mph (and the rest of the world is moving backwards at 30 mph). In the car behind you's frame of reference, you're moving backwards at 5 mph and the rest of the world is moving backwards at 35 mph. From the frame of reference of an observer standing in one place, you are moving forward at 30 mph, the other car is moving forward at 35 mph, and the rest of the world is standing still. (Which it isn't, because the earth is spinning on it's axis, and also orbiting the sun, etc.)

    From RW's frame of reference, the pass was moving backwards. From an observer's frame of reference, maybe it wasn't. And since the rule doesn't address any frame of reference, therein lies the controversy in this thread.

    So yes, you can hear the debate now. In fact you have, for several pages.
    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 12:06 pm
  • An additional factor is this: NFL viewing audiences are clearly swayed by NFL broadcast crew opinions and hyperbole. If the "Fail Mary" had not been exaggerated as "the absolute worst call in NFL history," most fans wouldn't have water-coolered it thus on Tuesday morning.

    Likewise, this play — had it not been scrutinized and slo-moed to death at the time — would have been accepted by everyone as a clear lateral-intent and a great impromptu play by both Wilson and Davis.

    Sidebar: Davis's role in this play is totally underrated.
    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 12:12 pm
  • Our Man in Chicago wrote:The play in question was clearly a forward pass as defined by current rules, and the Seahawks thus benefited from the lack of an infraction call. This is not seriously in question. The rules governing a lateral, however, should be subject for reassessment in light of current technological realities.

    The lateral option exists in order to differentiate from a forward or shovel pass. In the NFL, a lateral when the pitcher is in motion is generally a play-extender as opposed to a play solely in its own right; pro defenses are too fast for most hook-and-ladder plays and direct yardage would otherwise be negative or essentially neutral. In this way, the spirit of the lateral play — on display this past Sunday night — is the same as it was when the game began.

    If the play in question had featured a hoofing Charlie Conerly tossing a ball to a trailing Alex Webster in 1955, it would have been a clear lateral to the eyes of all viewers, relative and absolute velocity be damned. Conerly's intent would have been the same as Wilson's. But we don't live in 1955. In that year, Jackie Robinson was tagged out at home by Yogi Berra.

    The lateral rule as it exists fails to take into account the reality of a player in motion, and this, as has been stated upthread, is exacerbated by modern replay technology. As few appreciate a baseball manager challenging a stolen base on the pedantic notion that a runner might have left a bag for a microsecond while a tag was applied, rules should be changed to suit the game being played the "right way."

    I'll offer this: the majority of all pitcher-in-motion laterals in NFL history have also been "illegal forward passes." What should take precedence for a rules-committee reassessment are these two factors: if the pitch receiver (Davis) was clearly trailing the pitcher (Wilson) when the pitch occurred, and that the pitch itself was not a forward motion.


    Okay, this seems like a good option, but let me play devil’s advocate.

    As I understand the rule change as you suggest, would be an addition, for laterals in the field of play, and read something like (correct me if I’m wrong please); a lateral is legal if Player A starts his lateral, or releases the ball, to Player B AND Player B is behind Player A at that time.

    Under this scenario Player A could lateral forward as long as Player B is behind him when he starts/finishes his lateral, provided Player B is fast enough to catch up to the “now legal” forward lateral...
    "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 12:15 pm
  • 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.
    _______________________
    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 12:27 pm
  • FidelisHawk wrote:Okay, this seems like a good option, but let me play devil’s advocate.

    As I understand the rule change as you suggest, would be an addition, for laterals in the field of play, and read something like (correct me if I’m wrong please); a lateral is legal if Player A starts his lateral, or releases the ball, to Player B AND Player B is behind Player A at that time.

    Under this scenario Player A could lateral forward as long as Player B is behind him when he starts/finishes his lateral, provided Player B is fast enough to catch up to the “now legal” forward lateral...


    Our Man in Chicago wrote:What should take precedence for a rules-committee reassessment are these two factors: if the pitch receiver (Davis) was clearly trailing the pitcher (Wilson) when the pitch occurred, and that the pitch itself was not a forward motion.


    I'd tried to account for your loophole with the (bold) section above. A lateral should always be a backwards-toss gesture in keeping with the spirit of the play.
    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 12:37 pm
  • Our Man in Chicago wrote:
    FidelisHawk wrote:Okay, this seems like a good option, but let me play devil’s advocate.

    As I understand the rule change as you suggest, would be an addition, for laterals in the field of play, and read something like (correct me if I’m wrong please); a lateral is legal if Player A starts his lateral, or releases the ball, to Player B AND Player B is behind Player A at that time.

    Under this scenario Player A could lateral forward as long as Player B is behind him when he starts/finishes his lateral, provided Player B is fast enough to catch up to the “now legal” forward lateral...


    Our Man in Chicago wrote:What should take precedence for a rules-committee reassessment are these two factors: if the pitch receiver (Davis) was clearly trailing the pitcher (Wilson) when the pitch occurred, and that the pitch itself was not a forward motion.


    I'd tried to account for your loophole with the (bold) section above. A lateral should always be a backwards-toss gesture in keeping with the spirit of the play.


    Oops, missed the last part “ the pitch itself was not a forward motion.” of course that’s what we’re debating now. The lateral in question WAS pitched backwards, while going forward at the same time.

    I’m just not sure how you compose a rule that corrects both possibilities at the same time without having an “impartial third party" decide.

    And, I believe the NFL has enough “impartial third party decision rules" on the books already.
    "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 12:46 pm
  • ^ 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 is fine, we got lucky, we won the game - next time the RB needs to trail more

    And yes that the RB stayed with the play and made himself available is very underrated. I think we are used to watching pitch plays from college so we don't think about it the same way but it was not drawn up here. Great heads-up play
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6834
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:14 pm
  • Legal
    Over
    done
    on to next

    Seattle won on the merit of their play. Not because of a missed or made call. One call doesnt decide a game.
    I dont mean to shoot the OP, but it really irks me how the NFL has become a league where games are won and lost simply because of refs. They are human too. Seattle won because they outplayed Phiilly. Not because it was a lateral pass or not.

    We got the call- it was the right call.

    On to JAX
    "We Have 70 Dollars And A Pair Of Girls Underpants. We're Safe As Kittens I'm Telling You!"
    seahawksny
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1292
    Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:09 pm


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:32 pm
  • 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.
    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 1:42 pm
  • Image
    In 180 games, Walter Jones was called for 9 holding penalties in the course of 5,703 pass plays.
    First Round Inductee To Hall Of Fame 2014
    ESPN #1 Rated Seahawks Player of All Time
    User avatar
    KitsapGuy
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3703
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:09 pm
    Location: Kitsap County


Re: Ok....the lateral????
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:46 pm
  • Our Man in Chicago wrote:I'd tried to account for your loophole with the (bold) section above. A lateral should always be a backwards-toss gesture in keeping with the spirit of the play.


    But the word 'lateral' literally means...

    adjective
    1. of, at, toward, or from the side or sides.

    noun
    1. a side part of something

    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.
    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 1:48 pm
  • KitsapGuy wrote:


    Ha, just came to post this. In this video the point of release and the point of first contact appear to be only a matter of inches. I'll have to watch my recording of this play in slo mo. Even if challenged it may have been difficult to overturn as they need incontrovertible evidence.

    Unfortunately no Shcroedingers cat was mentioned.
    Russell has some stats that aren't Superb? Ow! Love his balls anyways!

    SC
    User avatar
    StoneCold
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2848
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:29 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:16 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online