Talk:Hook and ladder (football)

message: Why is "The Play" listed as an example?  There doesn't seem to be any hook and ladder in this kickoff return at all... 2601:548:4202:1082:D16A:4F0A:782E:88B5 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: With "hook and lateral" being a later corruption until proven otherwise.  I did an archive check on the the NYT, Chicago Tribune, and Washington Post.  The earliest mention of "hook and lateral" I found was 1991 in the Tribune, and the earliest mention of "hook and ladder" in relation to football was in the 1939 Washington Post in an article about the Sugar Bowl.  Combine this with the fact that a majority of people know it, correctly, as the "hook and ladder" and the article name should definitely be changed.74.129.236.44 15:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's seldom referred to as "hook and lateral", and "hook and ladder" predates "hook and lateral". Also, this sentence “We called it 87 Circle Curl Lateral,” says Don Strock, the quarterback for the Dolphins that night (notice the name of their play didn't even include the word "hook"). “And, believe me, the damn thing never worked in practice.” is strange. It doesn't really matter what the Dolphins named their plays. Why ought we take notice that the work hook wasn't used? Teams have various naming practices for their plays that don't necessarily have that much to do with what most people call them.--RLent (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree wholeheartedly.  Hook and ladder is the original term.  The rise of "hook and lateral" seems to stem from a handful of morons on ESPN and Millennial idiots who view them as a source of truth.  Also, the Stanford-Cal "The Play" was not a hook and ladder; it was just a kickoff return with lots of laterals.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.249.99.214 (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I've restored the reference to the play as a "hook and ladder", and added a bit. I guess it was removed because some people consider "hook and lateral" to be more correct, but "hook and ladder" is used at least as often, probably more often. (Try Googling "hook and ladder play" and "hook and lateral play" if you don't believe me.) Wikipedia should document the fact that the play is comonly called a "hook and ladder", regardless of whether people feel that's the proper name for it. -- Tim314 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a redirect this morning, so that should satasify it. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hook and Ladder is the original term

message: Maybe someone wants to write these up in such a way that they don't need Youtube support
----
If you want a good example of the play - check Boise State out in their bowl. http://news.google.com/news?q=%22hook%20and%20ladder%22%20boise&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
----
Does this look like a hook and lateral:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5NDjIFGM6Y --BigMac1212 22:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's a good example. — Lomn 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: "Hook and ladder" is the original name. The yardage gained prior to the hand-off is analogous to the base section of the ladder on a hook-and-ladder fire truck, and the yardage gained after the hand-off is analogous to the extensible section of the ladder.
It looks like at least one of the editors here was incorrectly using "hook and lateral" and refuses to give up the argument. 216.249.248.32 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is wack 

message: Agree. The article currently is at best misleading on that point. The term “Hook and Ladder” entered the national vernacular prior to WWII and has been used, widely, since at least the 1920’s.  
I’m guessing the infatuation with the term “hook and lateral” started with John Brodie’s commentary in the Chargers-Dolphins playoff game, and maybe that video has been viewed enough to create this myth. If it’s a valid technical distinction in some narrow setting, that needs disclosing. But outside that narrow POV, the article’s positioning of the common term as “incorrect” is argumentative and not supportable.
Cjallen67 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree; unwrites history, looks foolish