Ok....the lateral????

[253hawk]

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'.

 

[Mindsink]

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?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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.

 

[FidelisHawk]

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.

 

[sutz]

This is getting funny. :snack:

 

[Sgt Largent]

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...

 

[Chrome_Seahawk]

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:
[youtube]BLuI118nhzc[/youtube]

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.

 

[Seymour]

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.

 

[rossob]

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?

 

[nIdahoSeahawk]

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

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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.

 

[FidelisHawk]

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?

 

[Seymour]

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:

 

[12thbrah]

A big call goes our way and people here are still arguing about it. :lol:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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.

 

[Sgt Largent]

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:

 

[Seymour]

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:

 

[JimmyG]

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.

 

[Schadie001]

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.

 

[Jeremy517]

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