spanishomelette Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Check this out...This runback was overturned because the lateral was ruled illegal.. So the ball is let go at the 39 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 The ball is caught at the 41...So it is illegal...? They were moving forward...Is inertia not included in the rule :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimFolk Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Ravens sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 Originally posted by TimFolk Ravens sucks I know that...Just wondering about the call :laugh: plus they're playing the igs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Now wouldn't that be interesting. Ref goes out onto field and turns on microphone : "After further review. Though the ball was passed on the 39 and caught on the 41, the lateral rule of inertia stating that any ball..................... The play is ruled a Touchdown." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 It's not where the ball is let go or where it winds up, but rather whether it was traveling forwards or backwards. Obviously, if it was caught in front of where it was passed it was a forward pass and therefore not legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 Originally posted by Park City Skins Now wouldn't that be interesting. Ref goes out onto field and turns on microphone : "After further review. Though the ball was passed on the 39 and caught on the 41, the lateral rule of inertia stating that any ball..................... The play is ruled a Touchdown." Now THAT is the right call...The receiver was clearly behind the lateraler(?)...Anyway call 888-Ravensuck to claim your prize :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 Originally posted by TheSteve It's not where the ball is let go or where it winds up, but rather whether it was traveling forwards or backwards. Obviously, if it was caught in front of where it was passed it was a forward pass and therefore not legal. Okay, I guess I'll accept that answer, but I don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txkid Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 The pictures clearly show this. The lateral was illegal. I still hope the Ravens can come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Originally posted by spanishomelette Okay, I guess I'll accept that answer, but I don't like it. It's like this: 1. Where the reciever of the lateral is at the point of the initial pass is irrelevant. 2. The only thing that matters is the trajectory of the ball and whether it was forwards or backwards. 3. If the defender was 2 yards behind(as shown) when the ball was initially pitched and was 2 yards ahead when the ball was caught then this must mean it was not a backwards pass(he had to move up past the point of release to secure it) and therefore illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I called it as soon as it happened. For the purpose of ruling the play, inertia has absolutely no bearing as to whether that was the reason for the forward movement. Bottom line, forward laterals are illegal and it was a forward lateral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryerye05 Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 its like this, for the past 4 years the eagles have had the refs on their side. they are hands down the luckiest team in the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Originally posted by ryerye05 its like this, for the past 4 years the eagles have had the refs on their side. they are hands down the luckiest team in the league Dude I hate the Eagles as much as you do, but that lateral was not legal. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSmithTheReal#36 Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 If it was regular season game Ed Reed would have jogged it in himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 Originally posted by TheSteve It's like this: 1. Where the reciever of the lateral is at the point of the initial pass is irrelevant. 2. The only thing that matters is the trajectory of the ball and whether it was forwards or backwards. 3. If the defender was 2 yards behind(as shown) when the ball was initially pitched and was 2 yards ahead when the ball was caught then this must mean it was not a backwards pass(he had to move up past the point of release to secure it) and therefore illegal. I understand your point:cheers:...My point is the laterl rule is taken too literally...When you're moving forward and toss the ball back it is going to keep moving forward...He could have tossed it behind his head, and it still may have been caught past the 39. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Originally posted by spanishomelette I understand your point:cheers:...My point is the laterl rule is taken too literally...When you're moving forward and toss the ball back it is going to keep moving forward...He could have tossed it behind his head, and it still may have been caught past the 39. Too literally? :laugh: It is the players responsibility to turn his body around and lateral the ball to a player BEHIND him and not one running in stride with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 Originally posted by Westbrook36 Too literally? :laugh: It is the players responsibility to turn his body around and lateral the ball to a player BEHIND him and not one running in stride with him. Yes :laugh: Did you read my post? You say they were in stride with each other, and I say the receiver was behind. In either case a lateral is legal... Hence the name "lateral" :laugh:...But I'm wrong so what the hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNatsFan Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 That was an obvious call. There was no question about it. The ball travelled forward from the passer to the receiver. Easy call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Yeesh. Some of you guys take yourselves way too seriously. S'okay Omlette. I got it. :laugh: But hey, thank God Westbrook came in and said essentially what TheSteve said. :whew: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidPennSkin Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 The reason the pass was a forward lateral was that the players were running forward faster than the ball was moving backward. Velocities add. If the players had been standing still, the lateral would have been legal. When they are running fast, the lateral must be thrown backwards with at least as much speed as the players are running forward in order for the ball to travel backward. In this case, the lateral didn't move backward as fast as the players were running forward, ergo, the ball traveled forward, and was illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrrok Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 that was a completely legal pass......in rugby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1311 Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I thought it was hysterical...typical Ravens show-boating.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayLewis Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 what up with the raven hate? you guys should relate to ravens, your in the same hole as us basically. you got a great defense without an offense, your defense aint as good as ours and probably not your offense either but basically its the same problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNatsFan Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I hate the Ravens, but I didn't see a lot of Ravens hate in this thread. I bet you'll see it now though. As the thread turns ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I hate the Ravens, but I didn't see a lot of Ravens hate in this thread. I bet you'll see it now though. As the thread turns ... You should have seen the response before he edited. Had txkid's post quoted. Talk about seeing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.