Ok....the lateral????

[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?

• 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.

 

[johnnyfever]

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/...awks-philadelphia-eagles-lateral-forward-pass

 

[StoneCold]

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.

 

[Mindsink]

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.

 

[hawknation2017]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/937738484894261251[/tweet]

:snack:

 

[twisted_steel2]

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. unno:

 

[HawkFan72]

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.

 

[johnnyfever]

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).

 

[Hawk Finn]

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.

 

[Mindsink]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/937738484894261251[/tweet]

: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.

 

[Mindsink]

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. unno:

Agree 100%

 

[Seymour]

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.

 

[adeltaY]

Yeah, you can't challenge penalty flags. Maybe intentional grounding penalties is an exception?

 

[Sgt Largent]

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.

 

[253hawk]

Perfect video illustration.

And since american football gets its roots from rugby, this is how it should be.

 

[mikeak]

That wasn't forward

Sincerely
All Tennessee Titans players in the Music City Miracle game

 

[twisted_steel2]

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.

 

[mikeak]

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

 

[bigtrain21]

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)

 

[StoneCold]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/937738484894261251[/tweet]

: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?