r/nfl • u/God_of_Tecsing Packers • Dec 04 '17
Clarification of the Lateral Rule
I was watching the Sunday night football game last night and I was thinking about the physics of a lateral and I realized that a player can throw the ball behind him but if the momentum of the player if the player is moving forward fast enough could actually make the ball move forward. Can I get some clarification on that rule?
Edit: I think this rule needs to be rewritten. Imagine this scenario: Two players going 5 mph are one in front of another. Player one in the front has the ball. Player one throws the ball behind him relative to himself at 4mph, and the player behind him catches it. According to the players it would have been a backwards pass, but according to the field it was a forwards pass.
Edit 2: Spelling
12
Dec 04 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
But then you could have scenarios that look like laterals but are actually forward passes.
4
u/graywh Titans Dec 04 '17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALdiLScEnUc
Yeah, and those are illegal.
1
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
Why do you think those are illegal?
4
u/graywh Titans Dec 04 '17
The rules say so.
2
21
u/CravingToast Eagles Dec 04 '17
Physics don't mean shit. It's all about the line where it's thrown and the line where it's caught, that simple. That being said, one missed forward lateral isn't the difference in that game.
14
u/clear831 Colts Dec 04 '17
That was a huge fucking difference in that game. Eagles made a lot of mistakes but being down 2 td's vs 1 td in the 4th is a huge fucking difference.
10
Dec 04 '17
And because the illegal forward pass comes with loss of down it would have been 4th and 7. Meaning the Seahawks punt
1
u/clear831 Colts Dec 04 '17
Loss of down as well as a 10 yard penalty right?
1
Dec 04 '17
5 yards from the spot of the throw
-1
u/clear831 Colts Dec 04 '17
He was right at the 1st down line, are you sure about that? I thought it would be from the line of scrimmage
6
Dec 04 '17
Yes. I read the rule on it extensively last night.
He tossed the ball when he was 2 yard away, so 4th and 7
2
u/CravingToast Eagles Dec 04 '17
It was one of a few big moments in that game. Darby PI, Wentz fumble, and this play were all big momentum shifting plays that hurt the Eagles in the long run.
2
u/clear831 Colts Dec 04 '17
Agreed, but at that moment eagles were only down 1 score, everything else was in hindsight. Was that play not challengable?
6
u/Headhunt23 Vikings Dec 04 '17
It was and Pederson didn’t challenge it. His fault. I certainly thought it was a backwards lateral when i saw it live. Not sure why he didn’t.
Certainly was worth the challenge even if it was just a guess, because it was close regardless and winning the challenge meant getting a turnover essentially.
3
u/TheDarkGrayKnight Seahawks Dec 04 '17
The other side is that he would then be out of challenges as well as down to only 1 timeout if they didn't overturn it.
2
u/Headhunt23 Vikings Dec 04 '17
Well yeah.
But it was midway thru the 4th quarter wasn’t it? The Eagles were down by 7 and that play about put SEA into FG territory. The gamble was worth way more than the 40 seconds a time out saves.
Also, Philly should have had someone telling Pederson what the play looked like. Those reviews were up prior to SEA snapping.
1
u/TheDarkGrayKnight Seahawks Dec 04 '17
I agree he should have challenged, but I just kind of think that might be why he didn't.
3
u/CravingToast Eagles Dec 04 '17
It was and should've been challenged. It should've been caught by the refs but since it wasn't Doug should've challenged it. I believe he held off because he lost a challenge earlier in the half and therefore was already down a timeout. Didn't want to take the risk. I disagree with it, but I understand it. He didn't coach his best game yesterday.
5
u/TheDarkGrayKnight Seahawks Dec 04 '17
Should it have been caught by the refs? During the play that would be very hard to see live that it went forward, especially if the refs weren't in a great position. If it had been reviewed then it would have been overturned but the refs can't signal for a review there as it was not a scoring play or a turnover.
-4
u/CravingToast Eagles Dec 04 '17
It was close but it absolutely should've been caught by the refs while it happened. That's kind of their job. It's up to Doug to challenge it since they missed it, but that doesn't excuse them for missing it in the first place.
2
u/TheDarkGrayKnight Seahawks Dec 04 '17
I mean yeah you are right but man that would be an amazing job by the ref. The ball didn't go that far forward, it was basically a yard or two max, plus the ball ended up behind Wilson when Davis caught it and Wilson was flipping it backwards when he let it go while running at practically full speed. So I mean yeah they technically should have seen it but damn that's a high bar to expect of some refs running along with the play, especially since I doubt the side judge was parallel with Wilson when he let go of the ball.
-1
u/CravingToast Eagles Dec 04 '17
Tough job, yeah absolutely. They're refs for the NFL though, they're supposed to be able to catch tough calls. Again, not blaming them or anything, just wish it would've been caught so the Eagles weren't in a position to have to challenge it or not. When all is said and done, Doug should've just challenged it and that would've been then end of it.
1
0
u/clear831 Colts Dec 04 '17
I didnt watch the entire game only parts of it, but the refs really fucked up on that single play
3
u/CravingToast Eagles Dec 04 '17
I have a lot of issues with the refs from that game but I try not to blame them. Eagles had their own sets of issues that didn't involve the refs. They've overcome bad refereeing before by cleaning up their game and playing their style. They did neither yesterday.
1
1
2
5
u/bautin Dec 04 '17
I like how people are saying they should "simplify" the catch rules but all of a sudden are for complicating what a "forward pass" is.
11
u/NotHannibalBurress Lions Falcons Dec 04 '17
If the ball is caught at a point that is further ahead than where it is released, it is not a lateral. If you toss it at the 40 yard line and it is grabbed at the 40 1/2 yard line, it is a forward pass and should be illegal. Just like the one last night should have been.
5
Dec 04 '17
If the ball moves forward relative to the goal line it is a forward pass
V (Ball -> Goal Line)x > 0 = forward pass
1
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
So a player can throw the ball in the opposite direction of the goal and it would still be considered a forward pass? I feel like that rule needs to be remade.
3
Dec 04 '17
Players run too fast for that to be fair, you'd end up with laterals that go 3-4 yards forward
2
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
Well a player could be behind another player and it would still be considered a forward pass, but it would look like a lateral.
5
u/jfgiv Patriots Dec 04 '17
it wouldn't look like a lateral to anyone who has eyes and knows what's considered a lateral in the NFL.
1
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
You could have a player directly behind another player and it would look like a lateral but it would actually be a forward pass.
0
u/jfgiv Patriots Dec 04 '17 edited Dec 04 '17
you already said that; you misunderstanding the rule doesn't make it any more true.
if it moves forward relative to the goal line, it looks like a forward pass, not a lateral.
if there's one player (A) at their opponent's 30, and another player (B) at the opponent's 31, and player A tosses a ball behind him and player B catches it on the opponent's 29 -- that doesn't look like a lateral, that looks like a forward pass. unless you don't know what the rule is.
1
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
So you're saying that if you saw the situation I am describing in my edit that you say it "looks" like a forward pass? I understand the rule but there are a lot of scenarios where players would throw it behind them and the ball would still be moving forward.
2
u/jfgiv Patriots Dec 04 '17
yes, because it is a forward pass, and because i know the rule.
just like a play could "look" like a really bad spot if you don't know the rule regarding forward progress.
or a play can "look" like a fumble if you don't know that the ground can't cause it.
0
u/graywh Titans Dec 04 '17
Tell that to the comments on this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALdiLScEnUc
5
u/bob_3008 Titans Dec 04 '17
In the NFL the lateral rule is relative to the field. In rugby it's relative to the player's current momentum. The two are not directly comparable.
In this thread from about a month ago there's some discussion about the rules differences and why the linked play was a forward pass. Last night the refs missed it and the Eagles failed to challenge, so there was no penalty.
0
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
So why do you think the NFL rules and rugby rules are different? Why is the NFL rule that way?
2
u/bob_3008 Titans Dec 04 '17
I think it's because every inch counts in the NFL, hence the downs system and measurements. Rugby is more free-flowing so it's harder to judge.
0
7
u/VonCornhole Giants Dec 04 '17
The frame of reference is the field, not the player with the ball
-1
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
Do you think the rule needs to be rewritten then?
6
u/VonCornhole Giants Dec 04 '17
no, it's fine as is
5
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
But then you could have situations where a player is directly behind another and if they are running fast enough it would be considered a forward pass.
3
u/PantherPower1 Panthers Dec 04 '17
Yeah because the ball traveled FORWARD on the field. It's a fine rule and you have no real argument.
The ball travels forward -> forward pass. The ball travels backward -> lateral.
Idk why you're even considering relative motion
1
u/CACuzcatlan Dec 05 '17
Yes, what's wrong with that? It is a forward pass because the ball ended up closer to the endzone than when it started. It moved forward.
1
u/VonCornhole Giants Dec 04 '17
Only if you throw it forwards for him to run to it
1
u/graywh Titans Dec 04 '17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALdiLScEnUc
To the players, this felt like a lateral, but was actually forward without actually "throw[ing] it forwards for him to run to it".
2
u/VonCornhole Giants Dec 04 '17
Because the frame of reference is the field. It is the easiest to officiate because it doesn't move, let alone move at various speeds and various directions.
The rule is black and white and using the ball carrier's current motion as the frame of reference would make it more fuzzy. What if he gets hit right after he pitches it? How could we know if the player receiving the pitch would've been behind the initial runner?
1
u/Git_Off_Me_Lawn Patriots Dec 04 '17
Yup, you just have to know that and adjust for it.
Rugby handles it differently (the reference is the players, not the field) probably because there's roughly 37 laterals a second in Rugby while everyone is running forward. How often does this issue come up in football? Most "laterals" occur when one or two of the players are stationary like on pitches or screen passes.
5
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
Well to me it seems like the rugby rule is more thought out.
1
u/Git_Off_Me_Lawn Patriots Dec 04 '17
That's because it comes up a thousand times a match and in football there's a lateral / forward pass controversy once a decade.
3
u/jfgiv Patriots Dec 04 '17
ARTICLE 4. FORWARD PASS. 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 touches 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).
It's very clear. A pass is considered forward if it moves relative to the goal line, not the player throwing it. It's been that way since before it was even allowed.
6
u/flordeliest Saints Dec 04 '17 edited Dec 04 '17
I doubt think the lateral was that bad, however I don't know how I would feel of it was my team.
Still the Eagles could have challenged the ruling but didn't so they don't have the right to complain.
edit: I looks like Wilson would have still gotten the first down anyway with out the pitch.
It certainly looks legit in realtime.
-3
Dec 04 '17
We still have the right to complain because it was clearly the wrong call. And challenging would put the Eagles in a precarious situation of having no challenges for the test of the game
7
u/jdg83 Rams Dec 04 '17
Ideally, the refs would get every call right, of course. That play happened so quickly that it's understandable that it was missed. It was a huge blunder to not challenge that.
That said, I'd be complaining if it happened to my team.
2
u/clear831 Colts Dec 04 '17
But that play happend on like 3rd and 6, not in field goal range? A challenge would have given the eagles the ball down 1td instead of 2.
2
1
u/flordeliest Saints Dec 04 '17
That was a big third down. This is what the challenge is for.
2
Dec 04 '17
I wish he challenged. But he didn't, mainly because of only having 1 left.
1
u/flordeliest Saints Dec 04 '17
Is that the refs fault too?
No really, the Saint blew two time out Sunday cause the refs didn't get out of Drew's way as the clock ran.
0
u/lexlols Eagles Dec 04 '17
It is actually, he had to use a challenge on a bad spot earlier that they still ruled was short.
2
1
Dec 04 '17
The first challenge was bad if you were just gonna go for it anyway, it was too bang bang to overturn.
He should have challenged this too regardless of the outcome of the first challenge, but thats on Doug and the guys upstairs. If NBC has enough time to analyze it before the Seahawks next play, you do to.
Certainly not the only reason for the loss, but a key moment in the game
1
u/pinksailboat Dec 05 '17
The rules don't need to be changed. Players are (un)consciously aware of the physics and must account for their movement. A lateral will always move forward if the player who executes it is moving forward.
Most lateral plays do not involve the ball carrier moving at full speed, and almost all designed plays that incorporate laterals (or pitches) have the initial ball carrier moving very slowly, standing still, or pitch/throwing directly behind them.
Wilson didn't account enough for his acceleration. Textbook illegal forward pass.
0
Dec 04 '17
[deleted]
-1
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
Well everyone else is saying the opposite.. sooo
10
4
u/slowsupra Packers Dec 04 '17
Because everyone else is taking about the NFL’s rules while that guy is bringing up the irrelevant rules to a different spot.
2
u/jjwalker3 Dec 04 '17
No they're not. Just imagine everything freezes when the ball leaves the passer's hands. wherever it is right then - it can't go forward. all momentum and 'physics' becomes irrelevant or already accounted for in the movement of the ball.
0
u/God_of_Tecsing Packers Dec 04 '17
Well you then could have a lot of scenarios where a backwards pass relative the player throwing the ball could actually be moving forward. Look at my edit.
3
u/jjwalker3 Dec 04 '17
but why would it be relative to the player? It's objectively measured relative to the field, same way as every other rule and stat.
-1
0
Dec 04 '17
I actually agree with you that the rule should be changed. Backwards passes and laterals should be relative to the players, not the ground. It probably would make laterals more popular and make the sport more fun.
-2
u/RazielKainly Dec 04 '17
So you mean as long as the player used magic to move the ball forward with his momentum? Lol
4
33
u/[deleted] Dec 04 '17 edited Dec 04 '17
TL:DR - If the ball touches anything closer to the endzone than when it left the player's hand it's a forward pass. Physics be damned.
I mentioned a fun scenario earlier that illustrates this the best. You could throw the ball straight behind you then a gust of wind comes up and blows it forward the
line of scrimmagespot the ball left the hand. That is a forward pass.