NRR: Russell Wilson's "lateral"

[XXXIVwin]

One particular play got a lot of attention in the Hawks- Eagles game:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh4NoTLN01o


It is indisputable that Russel Wilson threw the ball BEHIND him, toward the RB trailing on the play, #39, Mike Davis.

However, the ball left Wilson's hand at around the 47 yard line, yet first touched Davis' hands at about the 48 yard line. There is indisputable video evidence that the ball moved forward.

How can this be?

Fact A: Wilson threw the ball behind him.
Fact B: The ball moved forward.

For those who have trouble reconciling these two facts, well, it's a physics thing. Einstein and the theory of relativity and all that. But for a simple visual explanation, please check out 30 seconds of this video below, from the 1:32 mark to the 2:02 mark:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg


The above video is obviously about rugby, where the definition of a "backward pass" is fundamentally different than the definition of a "backward pass" in the NFL. As you can see, a player can throw a ball BEHIND HIM AND OVER THE BACK OF HIS HEAD, yet the ball STILL MOVES FORWARD.

As NFL rules are currently written, the Seahawks did indeed commit an illegal forward pass, since the ball went forward by one yard between Wilson and Davis. And the Eagles made a mistake in not challenging the ruling.

But in my opinion, the rule should be changed. However, a strong case can be made for keeping the rule as-is... it's kind of a matter of taste. But I think it should be legal for a player to make a backward pass even if his own momentum carries the ball forward.

I hate the Seahawks and love our Rams, so I'm not defending Wilson or their obnoxious whiny fans... I'm just pointing out an interesting physics thang.

 

[Ramhusker]

Looking at that again, it was a forward pass. Replay challenge would of caught it but in real time, it looked legal.

 

[dieterbrock]

No matter what, it’s mind boggling that a coach wouldn’t challenge that play. Was a huge momentum play, even if you know you’ll lose it, you get a time out to re-coup

 

[DaveFan'51]

The Philly Coaching staff Blew-it by not challenging that Play!!

 

[jrry32]

I like the rules as is. There's no judgment call. That's the last thing they need to give the refs.

 

[Ram65]

Pederson said he already challenged and lost a time out. Thought it looked good at game time and the Hags snapped it fast before they got a good replay look or something like that......You have to challenge the play even if you are not sure. A timeout might have helped either way.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I like the rules as is. There's no judgment call. That's the last thing they need to give the refs.

This. The Eagles were incredibly stupid not to challenge.

 

[Mikey Ram]

Looking at that again, it was a forward pass. Replay challenge would of caught it but in real time, it looked legal.

I have to admit that in real time it looked like a lateral, but inded was not by rule as Ed "the guns" would say...

 

[LACHAMP46]

some physicist....Neil DeGrasse....explained it....said the players moving faster than the ball created an optical illusion...yada, yada, yada....called it something???? Looked close...bout a foot in front of where Russ threw it.

where's blue-nuts???? You hear something like that???

 

[RedRam]

That's the last thing they need to give the refs.

I have doubt that all the refs even know how to spell physics.

 

[XXXIVwin]

No matter what, it’s mind boggling that a coach wouldn’t challenge that play. Was a huge momentum play, even if you know you’ll lose it, you get a time out to re-coup

The Philly Coaching staff Blew-it by not challenging that Play!!

Agreed, Philly should have challenged, and they would have won the challenge. Huge play.

I like the rules as is. There's no judgment call. That's the last thing they need to give the refs.

That is certainly a compelling argument, I gotta admit.

However, a counter argument could be made that a rule change could make things more consistent and fair. Please keep in mind, the current rules defining a forward pass and defining a backward pass are quite different. Consider this, from section 3 of the 2017 NFL rulebook:

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)

In my opinion, it would make sense to define a backward pass using the same logic. But I'm OK with being in the minority opinion on this one.

some physicist....Neil DeGrasse....explained it....said the players moving faster than the ball created an optical illusion...yada, yada, yada....called it something???? Looked close...bout a foot in front of where Russ threw it.

where's blue-nuts???? You hear something like that???

Yeah, Neil DeGrasse Tyson called it a "Galilean transformation." Which it is. Although Wilson threw the ball backward, the ball moved forward. A relativity thing.

 

[jrry32]

That is certainly a compelling argument, I gotta admit.

However, a counter argument could be made that a rule change could make things more consistent and fair. Please keep in mind, the current rules defining a forward pass and defining a backward pass are quite different. Consider this, from section 3 of the 2017 NFL rulebook:

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)

In my opinion, it would make sense to define a backward pass using the same logic. But I'm OK with being in the minority opinion on this one.

That's the rule they use to judge whether it was a forward or backward pass. They use the objective criteria of the yard-line where it left the passer's hand. It keeps the refs from making judgment calls. The best way to ensure a consistent and fairly enforced rule is to take subjectivity out of it.

 

[XXXIVwin]

That's the rule they use to judge whether it was a forward or backward pass. They use the objective criteria of the yard-line where it left the passer's hand. It keeps the refs from making judgment calls. The best way to ensure a consistent and fairly enforced rule is to take subjectivity out of it.

jrry, I agree with your overall point about objectivity being preferable to subjectivity. However, again though-- they do not use the same criteria for a forward pass as they do for a backward pass. Check this out, again from Section 3 of the NFL rulebook:

If a Team B player contacts the passer or the ball after forward movement begins, a forward pass is ruled, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground or a player.

So, if a QB "looks like" he's throwing the ball forward, it is immediately ruled a forward pass, even if the ball winds up a couple of yards behind him.

So, for "forward pass" rulings, they do not always use the objective standard of yard-line markers.

 

[jrry32]

jrry, I agree with your overall point about objectivity being preferable to subjectivity. However, again though-- they do not use the same criteria for a forward pass as they do for a backward pass. Check this out, again from Section 3 of the NFL rulebook:

If a Team B player contacts the passer or the ball after forward movement begins, a forward pass is ruled, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground or a player.

So, if a QB "looks like" he's throwing the ball forward, it is immediately ruled a forward pass, even if the ball winds up a couple of yards behind him.

So, for "forward pass" rulings, they do not always use the objective standard. of yard-line markers.

They do, though. They determine whether or not Wilson's "lateral" was legal or not by applying the forward pass rule. The whole arm moving forward angle isn't really relevant here. When judging whether something is a lateral or forward pass, the arm action is irrelevant. If Wilson were to throw the ball with his arm moving forward backwards, it's still a lateral. The rule judges it by using the yard-line from which the ball left his hand.

 

[RamsFanCK]

The ball went forward for the same reason seat belts are a thing. Don't know why we need a physicist to tell us that....

 

[fearsomefour]

No matter what, it’s mind boggling that a coach wouldn’t challenge that play. Was a huge momentum play, even if you know you’ll lose it, you get a time out to re-coup

Yeah. I agree.
Also, not kicking tbe FG in range and missing the 4th down was strange to me. Your on the road vs a very good D team and struggling to score. You take the points man.

 

[XXXIVwin]

They do, though. They determine whether or not Wilson's "lateral" was legal or not by applying the forward pass rule. The whole arm moving forward angle isn't really relevant here. When judging whether something is a lateral or forward pass, the arm action is irrelevant. If Wilson were to throw the ball with his arm moving forward backwards, it's still a lateral. The rule judges it by using the yard-line from which the ball left his hand.

jrry, I think we just don't agree on this one, but that's ok.

Don't you recall seeing frame-by-frame replays where the commentators are agonizing about whether or not "the arm was moving forward"?

Again, if a passer's arm is moving forward, and he maintains control, yet somehow the ball ends up behind him, it is still considered a forward pass. It's not a lateral. It's obviously extremely rare for that to happen, though. (And obviously a completely different scenario than the Wilson play).

Again, please consider the following rule (unrelated to the Wilson play, because there was no "forward movement"):

If a Team B player contacts the passer or the ball after forward movement begins, a forward pass is ruled, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground

In some cases, a forward pass is ruled, regardless of where the ball lands.

"Arm action" is far from irrelevant, it's often crucial. If a passer with control of the ball releases the ball with his arm moving backward, it might be a backward pass, and it might not. Depends on the location of the ball.

However, if a passer with control of the ball releases the ball with his arm moving forward, it is always a forward pass.

Anyway... it's pretty rare for any of these scenarios to happen, since usually when your arm moves forward, the ball goes forward, and usually when your arm moves backward, the ball goes backward! So it's pretty rare for these debates to occur, and the Wilson play just happened to be one of those fluke plays where interpreting the rules get a little weird.

 

[bluecoconuts]

some physicist....Neil DeGrasse....explained it....said the players moving faster than the ball created an optical illusion...yada, yada, yada....called it something???? Looked close...bout a foot in front of where Russ threw it.

where's blue-nuts???? You hear something like that???

I'm assuming he's just over complicating momentum. It's the same as if you drop something out of a car at 60 miles per hour, it's not going to land and just fall like it was at a standstill. Momentum carried the ball forward because Wilson didn't account for that aspect of it, and didn't lateral it far enough back, and it ended up going forward. While he made the lateral movement with his arm it threw everyone off, but by the rules it's a forward pass.

It should have been a penalty and should have been challenged. Refs missed,but it's not surprising that they did. Seahawks got away with that one.

 

[Mackeyser]

some physicist....Neil DeGrasse....explained it....said the players moving faster than the ball created an optical illusion...yada, yada, yada....called it something???? Looked close...bout a foot in front of where Russ threw it.

where's blue-nuts???? You hear something like that???

NDT was wrong as is the OP's description.

This has nothing to do with the "Theory of Relativity" which has to do much more with the speed of light in a vacuum and light reacting with forces like gravity as well as time at faster speeds approaching the speed of light.

What physical phenomena was it?

Momentum.

Simply put, the forward velocity of Russell Wilson was greater than the backward velocity of the ball as it left his hand.

Thus, if he was running at 18mph and threw the ball backwards at 9mph, the NET velocity would be 9mph FORWARD.

Nothing to do with relativity.

Moreover, the NFL rules state that it is the absolute position of when the ball leaves the throwers hand as compared to the absolute position of when the ball is received.

As we saw, the ball moved a net of 1 yard forward. That's BY DEFINITION a forward pass. Period. End of story. Done. Finito.

Moreover, if a QB throws a ball full force into a strong head wind and it lands behind the QB, guess what? Ball is live and is considered a lateral.

Why? The rule is simple. Start with where it leaves the hand of the thrower. End with where it is received or lands. If behind, it's a lateral. If in front, it's a forward pass.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson understands astrophysics, but clearly doesn't know the rules of the NFL.

Why is this still a thing???