Ok....the lateral????

[mikeak]

^ yeah that will be a fine replay review......should only take 20 minutes to determine in cases where the ball is barely pitched backwards

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

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

Example -- look at Seahawks - Eagles this past week......

 

[pugs1]

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/938155412347588610

Yeah what he said...

 

[FidelisHawk]

^ yeah that will be a fine replay review......should only take 20 minutes to determine in cases where the ball is barely pitched backwards

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

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

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

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

Just in case. :lol:

 

[adeltaY]

Here's a great article: https://www.wired.com/story/eagles-vs-s ... backwards/

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

 

[Sgt. Largent]

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/938155412347588610

Yeah what he said...

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

Mike Pereira also said today on Twitter that the play was a reviewable play. So who cares if it was legal or not, Peterson should have challenged. THE END!

 

[Chapow]

Peterson should have challenged. THE END!

This.

Also, that's a really stupid way to define a forward pass as has been demonstrated several times in this thread.

 

[HawkerD]

When the NFL rule was written, either it was expected the player lateraling to be stationary or they did not consider the physics involved when the player lateraling was in motion.

I think the visual of the player lateraling the ball over his head and it being deemed a forward pass under the NFL rules shows the absurdity of the NFL rule.

 

[GeekHawk]

Here's a great article: https://www.wired.com/story/eagles-vs-s ... backwards/

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

Neil stole it from my post on page 4... :mrgreen:

 

[Exittium]

So the hawks all access vs eagles video in that thread......difference angle than the same exact one your all showing. And that Angle, from Russell side makes it look legit without any argument vs the “mike Davis side angle” we all see here

 

[kidhawk]

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

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

 

[253hawk]

The NFL hasn't, but good 'ol Mike Pereira has.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/937707196992966656[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/937707219084333056[/tweet]


Keep in mind this is the same league that says that the entire ball can be across the LOS when it is thrown downfield so long as the pinky nail on your trailing arm or the last lug on the heel of your cleat is still on it.

 

[Exittium]

http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=143185

Thie angle show ln in this thread in the videoand makes it look entirely different and completely legal

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

But the word 'lateral' literally means...

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

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

(my emphasis in bold above)

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

Either way, a change in nomenclature should occur. Wilson's play should not be termed a "forward pass," as if the ball was released in a forward direction. It was a backwards pass that, due to Galilean Transformation, eventually traveled ahead of its release.

 

[Hawkstorian]

OK I just finished my exhaustive review of every Seahawks play in history, and they have been totally jobbed by the refs 463 times. This counts all playoff and Superbowl games.

Seahawk opponents have been jobbed just 397 times.

We still have some catching up to do.

Sad -- not one of you even has the courtesy to call BS.

 

[Ad Hawk]

OK I just finished my exhaustive review of every Seahawks play in history, and they have been totally jobbed by the refs 463 times. This counts all playoff and Superbowl games.

Seahawk opponents have been jobbed just 397 times.

We still have some catching up to do.

Sad -- not one of you even has the courtesy to call BS.

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

Those stats are from this year alone, not every game in history.

 

[CASeahawk]

If you watch Seahawks all access on Seahawks.com at the 5:20 mark it shows a very interesting angle of the lateral. It was filmed by the all access crew. It clearly looks like it was tossed backwards.

 

[sutz]

5 pages now. Can we get it to 6? :snack:

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

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

5 pages now. Can we get it to 6? :snack:

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

Let's ask some expert scientists to weigh in on the idea.....

 

[Palmegranite]

5 pages now. Can we get it to 6? :snack:

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

Going forward, the NFL should literally take a page out of the CFL rulebook, define a lateral pass and clear up this ambiguity.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

I think the visual of the player lateraling the ball over his head and it being deemed a forward pass under the NFL rules shows the absurdity of the NFL rule.

This x 1000