NRR: Russell Wilson's "lateral"

[Mackeyser]

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.

We both picked up the error at the same time.

Great minds...and all that.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

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.

So, if a QB winds up and tries to throw a forward pass and the ball slips out of his hand and goes backwards, it isn't a fumble. I think it should be because it is equivalent of a running back fumbling the ball, or receivers not controlling the ball when going down or out of bounds. The QB should be charged with a fumble if he doesn't control the ball. The rule is a double standard.

 

[XXXIVwin]

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???

For cripes sakes, are you claiming that NDT, one of the foremost physicists in the country, doesn’t know how “relativity” applies here? Of course he does.

The theory of relativity isnt exclusive to light waves and gravity.. it can also be relevant to simple stuff, like footballs.

Here’s one definition of “relativity”:

“a theory, formulated essentially by Albert Einstein, that all motion must be defined relative to a frame of reference and that space and time are relative, rather than absolute concepts.”

Nobody is arguing that the ball didn’t move forward. It did. It went from the 47 to the 48, and it was an illegal forward pass.

But NDT’s point— which is also true— was that from Wilson and the RB’s “frame of reference,” the ball traveled backwards. “From their frame of reference.” And yes— when we all watched the play live, the camera was moving parallel to Wilson, so to many of us the ball APPEARED to move backwards as well!

NDT isn’t disputing that it was a forward pass, and neither am I. But due to relative “frame of reference” discrepancy, many people thought the ball APPEARED to move backwards.

Oh, and Mackeyser, one more thing— I’ll bet ya a thousand ROD bucks on that QB throwing into the wind scenario. I say if he throws it forward, but the wind pushes it backward, the NFL would rule it an incomplete forward pass. You say it would be a live ball, a fumble. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so... wish pereira or blandino could weigh in on this one. The rulebook sure seems to imply that the forward motion of the arm dictates a forward pass.

 

[Mackeyser]

For cripes sakes, are you claiming that NDT, one of the foremost physicists in the country, doesn’t know how “relativity” applies here? Of course he does.

The theory of relativity isnt exclusive to light waves and gravity.. it can also be relevant to simple stuff, like footballs.

Here’s one definition of “relativity”:

“a theory, formulated essentially by Albert Einstein, that all motion must be defined relative to a frame of reference and that space and time are relative, rather than absolute concepts.”

Nobody is arguing that the ball didn’t move forward. It did. It went from the 47 to the 48, and it was an illegal forward pass.

But NDT’s point— which is also true— was that from Wilson and the RB’s “frame of reference,” the ball traveled backwards. “From their frame of reference.” And yes— when we all watched the play live, the camera was moving parallel to Wilson, so to many of us the ball APPEARED to move backwards as well!

NDT isn’t disputing that it was a forward pass, and neither am I. But due to relative “frame of reference” discrepancy, many people thought the ball APPEARED to move backwards.

Oh, and Mackeyser, one more thing— I’ll bet ya a thousand ROD bucks on that QB throwing into the wind scenario. I say if he throws it forward, but the wind pushes it backward, the NFL would rule it an incomplete forward pass. You say it would be a live ball, a fumble. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so... wish pereira or blandino could weigh in on this one. The rulebook sure seems to imply that the forward motion of the arm dictates a forward pass.

Well, unless they started teaching physics differently from when I was at Lehigh, then using the Theory of Relativity isn't really applicable.

We're talking basic Newtonian physics.

The ONLY reason why Relativity should apply is because of what "seems" to have happened. Why did it LOOK to be going backward when it actually went forward. And yes, THAT is applicable from basic objects to objects on a massive scale.

Mkay. To explain that, then yeah, relative positioning explains that. But NDT is WRONG that it was a lateral because there are explicit rules in the NFL that define the position in absolute terms (insofar as anything in an expanding universe can have an "absolute" position). And yes, his tweet was that it was a lateral based on relativity.

“FYI: The lateral that @DangeRussWilson threw to @MikeDavisRB in Sunday’s @Seahawks@Eagles game was a legit “Galilean Transformation”. In their reference frame, the ball went backwards. It’s not their fault they ran forward faster than the ball.”

yeah...no. The relative position of the player does not apply to the rule. So...just no. Not with respect to the rule, anyway.

And he's wrong expressly because the term, "lateral", is a precisely defined term within the framework that is American Football and specifically, the National Football League.

So, while he was trying to explain why it SEEMED to be a lateral, and did so quite nicely, he came to the wrong conclusion because as you point out, the ball went forward and that expressly is a forward pass.

Now, as for the forward pass into the wind, that could be complicated by whether or not the ball passes the LOS. I honestly, don't know what the ruling would be if the ball went past the LOS and then flew back past where the QB released the ball, but I'd wager ALL of my ROD bucks that it would be a live ball because the definition of a forward pass still includes language on where the ball was released and where it lands in absolute terms. Unless I'm mistaken on the language, there isn't mention of the flight the ball takes so it wouldn't matter whether the ball went straight back or traveled a path like something out of Flubber.

The forward motion of the arm is only with respect to determining a fumble versus a forward pass.

Btw, I really enjoy these discussions. Physics is a hobby (strange, I know) and I enjoy the topic immensely. I have tremendous respect for NDT...and NPH for that matter.

I dunno whether he conflated the Galilean Transformation with the rules or simply didn't know that there was a specific rule that would obviate noting the players positions, relatively or absolutely, beyond exactly where the ball was thrown and caught.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Here’s one definition of “relativity”:

“a theory, formulated essentially by Albert Einstein, that all motion must be defined relative to a frame of reference and that space and time are relative, rather than absolute concepts.”

The theory of relativity essentially means that the laws of physics applies to all non-accelarating observers and the speed of light in a vacuum is independent of the motion of the observers. It also explains that massive objects can distort space-time causing ripples which we feel as gravity.

What your definition is talking about is that as long as someone was in a room accelerating in the middle of space at 9.8m/s^2 they would feel like they were on Earth, not knowing they were flying through space (assuming no windows obviously).

 

[LACHAMP46]

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.

Look at you....

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.

I wanna watch a Rams game and Ancient Aliens with you two....

 

[iamme33]

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.

the refs seem to miss a lot of calls that favor the chickens.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Well, unless they started teaching physics differently from when I was at Lehigh, then using the Theory of Relativity isn't really applicable.

We're talking basic Newtonian physics.

The ONLY reason why Relativity should apply is because of what "seems" to have happened. Why did it LOOK to be going backward when it actually went forward. And yes, THAT is applicable from basic objects to objects on a massive scale.

Mkay. To explain that, then yeah, relative positioning explains that. But NDT is WRONG that it was a lateral because there are explicit rules in the NFL that define the position in absolute terms (insofar as anything in an expanding universe can have an "absolute" position). And yes, his tweet was that it was a lateral based on relativity.

“FYI: The lateral that @DangeRussWilson threw to @MikeDavisRB in Sunday’s @Seahawks@Eagles game was a legit “Galilean Transformation”. In their reference frame, the ball went backwards. It’s not their fault they ran forward faster than the ball.”

yeah...no. The relative position of the player does not apply to the rule. So...just no. Not with respect to the rule, anyway.

And he's wrong expressly because the term, "lateral", is a precisely defined term within the framework that is American Football and specifically, the National Football League.

So, while he was trying to explain why it SEEMED to be a lateral, and did so quite nicely, he came to the wrong conclusion because as you point out, the ball went forward and that expressly is a forward pass.

Now, as for the forward pass into the wind, that could be complicated by whether or not the ball passes the LOS. I honestly, don't know what the ruling would be if the ball went past the LOS and then flew back past where the QB released the ball, but I'd wager ALL of my ROD bucks that it would be a live ball because the definition of a forward pass still includes language on where the ball was released and where it lands in absolute terms. Unless I'm mistaken on the language, there isn't mention of the flight the ball takes so it wouldn't matter whether the ball went straight back or traveled a path like something out of Flubber.

The forward motion of the arm is only with respect to determining a fumble versus a forward pass.

Btw, I really enjoy these discussions. Physics is a hobby (strange, I know) and I enjoy the topic immensely. I have tremendous respect for NDT...and NPH for that matter.

I dunno whether he conflated the Galilean Transformation with the rules or simply didn't know that there was a specific rule that would obviate noting the players positions, relatively or absolutely, beyond exactly where the ball was thrown and caught.

Cool!

So, Mackeyser, obviously you know what you're talking about. And basically, we agree. I agree with everything you say about momentum and basic Newtonian physics. I also agree that discussions of relativity are applicable exclusively to the "appearances" of the play.

As regards NDT, I am going to postulate the Wise-Ass Theory (W-AT) to explain his comments. Here's my reasoning to back-up this Wise-Ass Theory:

1. He mentions the Galilean Transformation. He knows that most people are going to have no idea what the hell he's talking about. He just wants to provoke curiosity.
2. He calls the Galilean Transformation "legit." He does not call the lateral "legit."
3. When he says, "It's not their fault they ran forward faster than the ball", again, I think he's being a bit of a wise-ass.... he's not necessarily challenging the "NFL rules," he's just explaining the "physics rules."

I suspect that NDT doesn't really give a crap about football, and that his main purpose in answering this question was to provoke further interest in science-- not to comment one way or another about NFL Rules.

When I said in my original post that "it is indisputable that Wilson threw it backwards", I was being a bit of a wise-ass as well. Because while that is technically true, it is also misleading. It all depends on whether you define "backwards" in relative terms or in absolute terms.

Clearly, the lateral is somewhat rare in the NFL, but integral to rugby. I just find it interesting that the two sports define a lateral differently. Rugby defines a lateral in relative terms, and the NFL defines a lateral in absolute terms. I prefer the rugby definition because I think it adheres more closely to the "spirit" of the rule. I think the NFL rule is meant to ensure that if a player is running past the LOS, he cannot throw a forward pass-- he can only throw it parallel to him or behind him, to a teammate. If a guy is running full speed and throws it behind him to a teammate-- well, I just think that should be legal, and the guy shouldn't be "penalized" for throwing a lateral while running at full speed if momentum causes the ball to drift forward.

As regards our other debate, the ball thrown into the wind... well let me just start by posting the damn rules, and then we'll go from there. I'll just post everything about defining a "pass", even though only a few points are relevant:

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).
(c) When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his hand starts a forward pass.
Item 1. Contact by Team B Player. 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. When this occurs, intentional grounding rules do not apply. If a Team B player contacts the passer or the ball before forward movement begins, the direction of the pass is the responsibility of the passer, and grounding rules apply.
Item 2. Passer Tucks Ball. If the player loses possession of the ball during an attempt to bring it back toward his body, or if the player loses possession after he has tucked the ball into his body, it is a fumble.
Item 3. Passer re-cocks his arm. If the player loses possession of the ball while attempting to re-DNA rifle his arm, it is a fumble.
Item 4. Fumbled or Muffed Ball Goes Forward. The fact that a fumbled or muffed ball goes forward is disregarded, unless the act is ruled intentional. If it is intentional, a fumbled ball that goes forward is a forward pass (8-1-1), and a muff is a bat (12-4-1).

ARTICLE 5. BACKWARD PASS. It is a Backward Pass if the yard line at which the ball is first touched by a player or the ground is parallel to or behind the yard line at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand. A snap becomes a backward pass when the snapper releases the ball. Note: If a pass is batted, muffed, punched, or kicked in any direction, its original designation as a Forward Pass or a Backward Pass does not change.

------
So this is why I claimed earlier that the rules governing a forward pass are "different" from the rules governing a backward pass.

The NFL seems to have a history of going through all sorts of gyrations to protect a QB's "intent" of throwing a forward pass. We all remember all that bullcrap caused by the "Tuck Rule." I mean, the slightest little forward motion of the arm, and BOOM! it's a "forward pass."

Let me ask you this: if the definition of a forward pass relies ONLY on the "absolute" location of the ball....

(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)

Then why in hell does the rulebook ALSO have these "alternate" definitions of a forward pass?

(a) the ball initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent’s goal line) after leaving the passer’s hand(s);
(c) When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his hand starts a forward pass.

Basically, I think the NFL rulebook tries to give the passer as much possible "benefit of the doubt" regarding his intent to throw a forward pass. Therefore, in my reading of the rules, as soon as the QB throws the ball forward, then boom, it instantly becomes a forward pass, even if gale force winds eventually push the ball behind the passer.

 

[FrantikRam]

That was really tough in real time - so expecting the refs to catch it is probably unrealistic.

At the same time, it should have been challenged by the Eagles.

But at the end of the day - another illegal play/wrong call went in favor of the Seahawks in Seattle during a primetime game.

I'm happy that our game didn't get flexed to Sunday night..

 

[FrantikRam]

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.

I can't find the video on youtube, but Delhomme's forward shovel pass that went backward somehow comes to mind from the 2003 season playoff game.

That might be an official rule, but IMO it's rarely used. If the ball goes backward, it's a fumble. If a QB goes to throw the ball forward and it slips out of his hand, it's a fumble every time

 

[Snaz]

Relativity in regards to the observer simply explained.
Man is walking on a train towards the caboose at 2 MPH.
If the train is stopped or it is moving to the man he is only moving at 2 MPH towards the caboose.

Now someone at the train station sees the man through the windows.
The train was stopped he sees the man heading towards the caboose at 2 MPH.
The train start to move there will be a moment where the walking man appear to be standing still while walking.
Once the train gets up to speed faster 2 MPH the man even though walking will appear to the observer as going backwards.

NFL rules, the ball moved forward one yard from release point. It was a forward pass.

What it appeared on camera due to the forward speed of the camera moving in sync with Wilson and compared to a ref standing still on the sideline would judge it two ways. Ref was probably moving too.

 

[dieterbrock]

Well they never call an illegal forward pass at the end of games when teams keep lateraling the ball back and forth. Many times it resembles that play

 

[bluecoconuts]

I suspect that NDT doesn't really give a crap about football, and that his main purpose in answering this question was to provoke further interest in science-- not to comment one way or another about NFL Rules.

He doesn't, and NDT gets a lot of physics wrong. That's to be expected though, he's not doing research day in and day so he's going to get rusty at times. Plus he ventures out of his area of expertise a lot as well because his primary job now is to peak the interest of non-scientific people.

Reality is he gets a lot of little details wrong, and often can't provide deep substance (meaning enough to satisfy other experts/PhD's)....Michio Kaku is another one, I did a lecture with him once in New York, basically all he did was talk about his TV shows and gave us watered down science... Which is fun for the general public, not for people with doctorates hoping for a more in depth discussion.

 

[Zaphod]

He doesn't, and NDT gets a lot of physics wrong. That's to be expected though, he's not doing research day in and day so he's going to get rusty at times. Plus he ventures out of his area of expertise a lot as well because his primary job now is to peak the interest of non-scientific people.

Reality is he gets a lot of little details wrong, and often can't provide deep substance (meaning enough to satisfy other experts/PhD's)....Michio Kaku is another one, I did a lecture with him once in New York, basically all he did was talk about his TV shows and gave us watered down science... Which is fun for the general public, not for people with doctorates hoping for a more in depth discussion.

No question, his goal is often to invoke thought and get people interested in theory.

I think it was a silly perspective though, and I'm no physicist, so maybe I'm off, but to me, if you're bringing up relative motion, wouldn't you include the earth's rotation, it's orbit around our sun, our solar system's movement within the Milky Way, and it's movement within the universe as we can describe it?

 

[bluecoconuts]

No question, his goal is often to invoke thought and get people interested in theory.

I think it was a silly perspective though, and I'm no physicist, so maybe I'm off, but to me, if you're bringing up relative motion, wouldn't you include the earth's rotation, it's orbit around our sun, our solar system's movement within the Milky Way, and it's movement within the universe as we can describe it?

I mean you could if you're going to say relative to a specific point in the universe, otherwise that wouldn't be relevant in terms of what happened. The change due to rotation only really becomes measurable over larger distances. About 3-4 inches at 1,000 yards.

I mean if you wanted to go that route, the ball traveled roughly 119.99KM during that toss in terms of point to point in the universe.

 

[XXXIVwin]

He doesn't, and NDT gets a lot of physics wrong. That's to be expected though, he's not doing research day in and day so he's going to get rusty at times. Plus he ventures out of his area of expertise a lot as well because his primary job now is to peak the interest of non-scientific people.

Reality is he gets a lot of little details wrong, and often can't provide deep substance (meaning enough to satisfy other experts/PhD's)....Michio Kaku is another one, I did a lecture with him once in New York, basically all he did was talk about his TV shows and gave us watered down science... Which is fun for the general public, not for people with doctorates hoping for a more in depth discussion.

Interesting. Although in this case, I think NDT was pointing out something pretty elementary-- that the pass was a "lateral from Wilson and Davis' shared frame of reference."

bluecoconuts hypothesizes that

the ball traveled roughly 119.99KM during that toss in terms of point to point in the universe.

Awesome... definitely a forward pass, then. I think. Or maybe it went straight up? Depends on where you park your floating lawnchair in the universe, I guess.

Or as Zaphod points out, to more accurately track the ball's movement you'd have to

include the earth's rotation, it's orbit around our sun, our solar system's movement within the Milky Way, and it's movement within the universe as we can describe it

I believe the NFL rulebook does not account for this.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Interesting. Although in this case, I think NDT was pointing out something pretty elementary-- that the pass was a "lateral from Wilson and Davis' shared frame of reference."

Yeah pretty much, he just over complicates it, kind of his style.

We actually make fun of it a lot at work to be honest. We'll over complicate some basic thing and start going into random tangents just for shits and giggles.

 

[PARAM]

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.

Certainly shouldn't question the great NDT and he called it A Galilean Transfer. It has something to do with the players traveling faster than the ball.

But it was forward pass (here's where I question NDT).

If you throw an object from a stand still position it either goes backwards, forwards or dead even. But if you're traveling, even though the ball is not moving it has momentum due to your movement. Try throwing a whiffle ball straight out a car window as you're traveling at about 35 MPH. It appears to go backwards because the car keeps going but I can guarantee you the ball will land further ahead of where you threw it out the window. The car's momentum makes it so.
So with Wilson running and throwing it perfectly sideways, the ball ends up a yard ahead of where he let it go.

Illegal forward pass. Look at where Wilson was when he let it go (47 yard line) and where the RB was when he caught it (48 yard line). Unless we're supposed to allow for the earth's rotation, it's a forward pass. There's no way a ball released at the 47 ends up at the 48 by going directly sideways. It has to go forward.

 

[nighttrain]

looked good when i saw it
train

 

[jrry32]

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.

Respectfully, you keep focusing on the wrong issue.
1. A forward pass is never ruled a forward pass unless the ball goes at least some fraction of an inch forward from the spot where the QB is. The arm moving forward issue ONLY applies to plays where the ball goes at least some fraction of an inch forward. At that point, the refs have to decide if the ball came out before his arm was moving forward to decide if it was a FUMBLE or a PASS. They're not deciding if it was a FORWARD PASS or a LATERAL.

2. When they're actually deciding whether it was a LATERAL, it is irrelevant if the arm was moving forward or not. They only look to see if the ball advanced some fraction of an inch forward from where the QB let it go.

Arm action is IRRELEVANT to the determination of whether a play was a lateral or not. Here's an example:


The refs needed to determine if this was a forward pass or lateral. Aaron Rodgers's arm was coming forward. However, the refs ruled it was a LATERAL. Why? Because the ball didn't come forward when it left Rodgers's hand. The pass went straight towards the sideline horizontally. Since it didn't move forward, it was ruled a fumble. Yet, his arm was still moving forward when he released it, but that was irrelevant because they were determining if it was a lateral.

Basically, this statement below is 100% wrong:

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

Here's another example to drive that point home:

View: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/09000d5d82266cb2/WK-2-Can-t-Miss-Play-Botched-Rams-pass-leads-to-Giants-TD


Here's a painful blast from the past. Bradford's arm is moving forwards, but the ball travels backwards. That's a lateral.

The SOLE consideration when considering whether a play was a LATERAL or not is: Did the ball move forward at all from the point where it left the passer or runner's hand? That's it. That's the only thing they care about. That's why the rule is consistent and fair.