The downfield lateral, why we don't see it?

[dressedcheeseside]

A lot of folks like to compare our style of offense to rugby. This is mainly because we pitch the ball a lot, or at least, a lot more than most teams. Other than that, the similarities cease. However, most, if not all, of our pitches happen behind the line of scrimmage even though it is perfectly legal to pitch the ball, assuming it is backwards, at any point forward of the LOS. If we actually pitched beyond the LOS, we'd look a lot more like a rugby team.

My question is why not? After JT turns the corner, the pitchback is supposed to maintain proper pitch relationship, right? I know JT is phenomenal in the open field, but we've had plenty of qb's in the past who weren't yet we didn't see downfield pitches then, either.

Is it more dangerous? I don't think so. The risk reward seems to be about the same. A fumbled pitch, which is actually called a backwards pass in football terms, is still a "live" ball no matter where it happens in relation to the LOS. Is there no real reward? Not in my opinion. Qb's are tackled all the time downfield and trailing players are not specifically covered by defenders. It seems to me a great opportunity to extend plays and score points.

I think it comes down to the fact that it's not practiced. We're good at our use of the backwards pass because we practice the heck out of it. It's precisely why other teams don't use it, they don't practice it. I guess it has a lot to do with the risk of fumble, obviously, but again, we make that gamble ever time we pitch behind the LOS so what gives?

aside: for statistical purposes, any yardage gained by the pitchback for pitches executed forward of the LOS do not count as rushing yardage for that player. It's counted as fumble recovery yardage. Interesting.

 

[stech81]

A lot of folks like to compare our style of offense to rugby. This is mainly because we pitch the ball a lot, or at least, a lot more than most teams. Other than that, the similarities cease. However, most, if not all, of our pitches happen behind the line of scrimmage even though it is perfectly legal to pitch the ball, assuming it is backwards, at any point forward of the LOS. If we actually pitched beyond the LOS, we'd look a lot more like a rugby team.

My question is why not? After JT turns the corner, the pitchback is supposed to maintain proper pitch relationship, right? I know JT is phenomenal in the open field, but we've had plenty of qb's in the past who weren't yet we didn't see downfield pitches then, either.

Is it more dangerous? I don't think so. The risk reward seems to be about the same. A fumbled pitch, which is actually called a backwards pass in football terms, is still a "live" ball no matter where it happens in relation to the LOS. Is there no real reward? Not in my opinion. Qb's are tackled all the time downfield and trailing players are not specifically covered by defenders. It seems to me a great opportunity to extend plays and score points.

I think it comes down to the fact that it's not practiced. We're good at our use of the backwards pass because we practice the heck out of it. It's precisely why other teams don't use it, they don't practice it. I guess it has a lot to do with the risk of fumble, obviously, but again, we make that gamble ever time we pitch behind the LOS so what gives?

aside: for statistical purposes, any yardage gained by the pitchback for pitches executed forward of the LOS do not count as rushing yardage for that player. It's counted as fumble recovery yardage. Interesting.

My guess if their down field CPJ wants them to block, not follow the running back. But I'm only guessing.

 

[InsideLB]

Fair question. My guess is that it's more conservative to just keep it. Pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.

 

[MWBATL]

I would think it is much harder to "practice" downfield pitches because in the course of the play, so many things can happen which put players in different positions, whereas in our base behind-the-LOS pitches, if we execute we should know EXACTLY where the pitch man is. Downfield, well, he may be out there somewhere, but not with the certainty of the initial play design. I think that added uncertainty raises the risk of a turnover to the point where CPJ says "nah".

 

[Boomergump]

It's pretty hard to keep pitch relationship with JT down field after he takes off. He's pretty fast. Heck, last year we saw JT beat many of our ABs to the boundary in the backfield after a sudden change of speeds.

In the backfield there is less traffic and pitch relationship is a matter discipline. Downfield, there is blocking going on and defenders everywhere that need to be navigated. The pitch no longer has the chance to be "blind". A QB simply can't count on a guy being there without looking. If it happens, it would need to be a case where the QB looks for his AB first. In traffic, that might not be a good idea.

 

[Boomergump]

I guess MWBATL and I were typing at the same time.

 

[DrJacket]

I have no personal cardiac history. But, downfield pitches might give me one.

Some of those pitches JT made in the early season (last year) were high and kind of hung in the air for a minute before they would be grabbed by an Ab. That was enough to just about make me fall out of my seat.

In all seriousness, though, one of those downfield would be a fun wrinkle to see (if it worked).

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Any former rugby players on the board want to chime in? It's second nature in that sport. They're good at it because it's integral and it's practiced. It'd be an interesting experiment to see a rugby team suit up and do their thing on the grid iron vs a football defense.

 

[Boomergump]

I have seen us get some pitches off beyong the LOS, but they are usually close when they do happen.

 

[Aanderson1839]

Part of it is the nature of the option. If JT keeps it usually means someone took the pitch man. Once he decides not to pitch he is going to be fully focused on getting himself upfield.

Pitches like that are usually on designed kick returns or broken plays or turnovers where a lineman recovers a fumble and wants someone else to run with it.

 

[Skeptic]

It's pretty hard to keep pitch relationship with JT down field after he takes off. He's pretty fast. Heck, last year we saw JT beat many of our ABs to the boundary in the backfield after a sudden change of speeds.

In the backfield there is less traffic and pitch relationship is a matter discipline. Downfield, there is blocking going on and defenders everywhere that need to be navigated. The pitch no longer has the chance to be "blind". A QB simply can't count on a guy being there without looking. If it happens, it would need to be a case where the QB looks for his AB first. In traffic, that might not be a good idea.

Yes, and once a runner turns upfield and gets his shoulders square, it is time to turn it on and look for yardage.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

It is tough to keep the correct distance between the QB and RB the farther down field you go. Seems like I have seen us do it a few times.

 

[bravejason]

Just watching a few rugby clips on youtube, the style of play and rules of the game are what makes all the laterals possible, and, moreover, necessary. The offensive players not near the ball are usually weakly defended, meaning that the defense is distant and outnumbered, and there are multiple offensive players positioned to catch the laterals and corral loose balls. Also, the continuous play nature of the game means that a defender can't fall on a loose ball and claim it for his team and an offensive player can't protect that ball by downing himself. When the defense attacks the ball, the offensive player has no choice but to get rid of the ball if he can't break the tackles, lest the ball be wrestled away from him. That's my Holiday-Inn-Express analysis.

In football, I don't think the risk-reward associated with a downfield lateral will normally justify it. It rewards only if there is only one nearby defender and the pitch is legally completed. A fumble effectively ends the play for the offense, with potentially disastrous consequences if the opponent recovers the ball. Once you get past the first down marker, you have 4 more chances to do something positive. The reward-to-risk ratio would have to be large, in my opinion, to justify a downfield lateral.

Question: The penalty for an illegal forward pass is 5 yards from the spot of the foul and loss of down. If the illegal pass occurs on 3rd down and more than 5 yards downfield of the line to gain (a.k.a., the first down marker), what is the resulting down and distance? Is it first and 10?

 

[1939hotmagic]

Downfield laterals -- something I would love to see developed -- actually would, like so many things in football, be a case of going "back to the future." Back in the '30s, under double-wing guru coach Andy Kerr, Colgate was known for the measure, not merely on planned plays such as the now-known "hook-and-lateral," but spontaneously, e.g., however a play unfolded, if the ball carrier was about to be tackled, he would flip the ball to a nearby trailing teammate. (Just google "Colgate football" "1932 season" "Andy Kerr", it'll be an entertaining education for you.) Kerr was a HC for 26 years at four schools, had a career record of 137-71-14, he was no flash in the pan. Spinners, double-spinners, multiple laterals -- Kerr was an innovator. From a newspaper column ages ago: " . . . the shrewd Andy gave even greater variety to his offense by incorporating laterals into it. Using tips he had picked up from rugby experts, he polished the techniques of his players by constant drilling until they could manipulate multiple passes and pitch-offs with precision."

Another hall of fame coach from the past whose teams were known for occasional use of downfield laterals was Bennie Bierman, primarily at Tulane and later at Minnesota. (Bierman's Minnesota teams were a single-wing terror in the latter '30s and early '40s, going 59-9-1 with four seasons of recognition as a national champ.)

 

[Ash]

It worked when JT did it against UGA as he was getting tackled...but it was not planned. It would be awesome to see farther downfield but woah nelly it would be heart attack inducing.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Downfield laterals -- something I would love to see developed -- actually would, like so many things in football, be a case of going "back to the future." Back in the '30s, under double-wing guru coach Andy Kerr, Colgate was known for the measure, not merely on planned plays such as the now-known "hook-and-lateral," but spontaneously, e.g., however a play unfolded, if the ball carrier was about to be tackled, he would flip the ball to a nearby trailing teammate. (Just google "Colgate football" "1932 season" "Andy Kerr", it'll be an entertaining education for you.) Kerr was a HC for 26 years at four schools, had a career record of 137-71-14, he was no flash in the pan. Spinners, double-spinners, multiple laterals -- Kerr was an innovator. From a newspaper column ages ago: " . . . the shrewd Andy gave even greater variety to his offense by incorporating laterals into it. Using tips he had picked up from rugby experts, he polished the techniques of his players by constant drilling until they could manipulate multiple passes and pitch-offs with precision."

Another hall of fame coach from the past whose teams were known for occasional use of downfield laterals was Bennie Bierman, primarily at Tulane and later at Minnesota. (Bierman's Minnesota teams were a single-wing terror in the latter '30s and early '40s, going 59-9-1 with four seasons of recognition as a national champ.)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now that's what I was getting at with this thread. So many are quick to shoot down outside the box thinking. I think it could be successful in today's game like it was back then, if done right. I know, that's a big IF.

 

[awbuzz]

As mentioned above, the risk reward ratio becomes much more harried. Keep the yards gained and reduce the risk of a fumble.

 

[Yoda]

One of those Colorado option wizards had a sweet down field pitch back in the day.
Edit:

 

[lv20gt]

Almost impossible to keep pitch relation and when you're running down the field you need to protect the ball more, which makes it harder to pitch. Furthermore with differing speeds in opposing players, you can't really predict how close a trailing defender could be, and no real way to find out until you are already pitching it. You can't really compare it to rugby because, iirc, you can't block in rugby, so your team mates will all trail behind as well as the nature of what happens after you're tackled, I believe you can still pass it off to your own team, but you can't turn over. Meaning facing backwards when you get tackled is the best. I could be wrong, but I think that is how it goes. Basically rugby incentive's players being behind the ball carrier, and the ball carrier to face back as a tackle is approaching, when in football the incentive is to get down field to block, and there is little to no reason for a ball carrier to look back.

 

[Skeptic]

Based on another post check out Montana State at 3:30 on ESPN and if the thing exists in college anymore, they will run it.,