lateral
 

A lateral is not supposed to go forward, but almost all of them do. Two runners going forward and one laterals to the other. They are both running at approximately the same speed so the ball is going from one to the other and in relation to the two runners it is not going forward. But both runners have taken a step or two while the ball is in the air. So therefore the ball has really been passed forward in relation to the ground. What is the rule exactly.?

As is so often the case, FIRST it depends on which Rules Code you're referring to: Generally, however in the language of football, there is no such thing as a "lateral", there is only "Forward" and "Backwards" (like "Pregnant", either you are, or you are not)

Under the NFHS Code NF;2-31-2 defines a forward pass, "is a pass thrown with its initial direction toward the opponent's end line".

NF: 2-31-5 defines a backwards pass, "is a pass thrown with it's initial direction parallel or toward the runner's end line.

Lateral is a "civilian" term. It is not used in the written rules of the game.

A pass is considered forward based on the initial direction of the pass.
That which is not considered forward is backward.

No, actually the Canadian amateur & pro codes, as well as NFL's, use "lateral" as an alternative word for "onside" or "backward" respectively in reference to passes. NCAA used to do likewise but got rid of it a long time ago.

All the current Canadian & USAn codes distinguish the type of pass on the basis of its relationship to the ground -- either point of origin to point where it next touches the ground, a player, an official, or the sideline; or its initial direction as it leaves the passer's hand. In Rugby Union, last I looked there was still some controversy, but it seems most have decided it must relate to the motion of the passer over the ground, so that a pass may go forward over the ground without being judged as having been thrown forward if the player who passed it was running forward faster than the ball winds up moving forward, and (a rarer case) a pass that goes backward over the ground will be judged as thrown forward if the player was moving backward and passes the ball in such a way that it winds up moving backward more slowly than the player.

Last time I tried posting on an issue that crossed over between rugby & North American football -- it may have been this very issue -- the moderator moved it to the rugby section, maybe on the basis of its needing more traffic.

True and true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_zg-J0q42M


In Canadian amateur, we do not care about the initial direction as it leaves the passer's hand. If the pass leaves going forward, but wind blows it backwards, and it then hits the ground, it is a backwards pass.

This effect is taken into account in a proper Canadian ruling, and a correct call would not allow your scenario. IOW, the first touch by the recipient must be a point not closer to the attacking dead ball line than the last touch by the sender.

Yes, that's Fed's problem. I've no idea why Fed wants to make it that the only way to rule correctly on the direction of a pass in a close case would be for an official to be on the same yard line as the ball at release. They also have a provision defining handing the ball forward which can't possibly mean what it literally says.

What parts of NFHS 2-19-2: "forward handing occurs when the runner releases the ball when the entire ball is beyond the yard line where the runner is positioned." or,

NFHS 2-19-3: "Backwards handing occurs when the runner releases the ball when any part of the ball is on or behind the yard line where the runner is positioned." are creating problems with your determining, "what it literally says"?

Granted, determining a violation of the "Handing" rule NFHS 7-3-2 does require precise positioning and detailed observation by the calling official, but those seem entirely appropriate considerations for determining such a violation.

What's the yard line where the runner is positioned?

I am neither Canadian nor a professional.

Would you prefer, "where the runner is "standing", "stationed", "occupying", "present" or some other word denoting his position ?

The most common time you'll see a forward handoff is when a team runs a reverse on a kick return. If the guy receiving the handoff runs on the wrong side of the guy with the ball, he could hand it forward. This is a foul. I saw it for the first time in an all-star middle school tournament in December. Flagged it. Got the signal and enforcement right. Guessed on both since I couldn't remember.

The runner has a body of many parts, and hence spans a distance between the end lines.

C'mon Robert, for 100+ years, most officials have had little, if any, problem deducing whether a handoff was forward, or backwards, using the current rule description. Once again, this doesn't seem like a situation that is at all broken.

That's not true, because the definition given by Fed (and similarly by NCAA) is a recent creation, nothing like 100 yrs. old (which is why I bolded your passage above). NCAA's interpret'n AR 7-1-6 even contradicts it because it's from a time before the current definition. NFL's definition differs from both of them.

Until recently, Fed didn't even have a definition for this, and NCAA in 7-1 referenced the relative positions of the players giving & getting the ball. If there wasn't a problem, why fix it? The former situation, while not ideal, was better than the current wording, which muddies the water.

Fed could clarify by specifying a body part as landmark. For instance, they could say the foremost point of the body exclusive of the upper extremities, so then it's all about where the hands & arms are in relationship to the rest of the body when the ball's released.

Sorry Robert, Shakespeare nailed it with, "much ado about nothing". As for, "the foremost point of the body exclusive of the upper extremities", we are talking about a moving body, in the midst of a crowd of other moving bodies, on a wide open field.

leaving, "where the runner is positioned", which hasn't appeared to cause much serious concern for over....a long time, seems a lot more useful.