The New Pandemic: Roughing The Passer

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Had the misfortune of seeing two of these live(don’t worry. I’m not dumb enough to spend a trip to Tampa just for the Falcons. I’m here for other reasons aside from my Atlanta sports fandom lol). I really don’t see why these kinds of penalties can’t be reviewed liked targeting is. For those afraid the refs will never reverse on a judgment call, targeting calls get reversed every week. I think it’s worth it, especially in the NFL’s case where they can talk to New York and have them buzz down and reverse an obvious bad calling like the Brady one.

I thought I was upset about the call Saturday, bud I was livid Sunday. I’m a bigger college fan than pros, but that call against the Falcons was so damn bad it got me more upset than the one against us.

 

[85Escape]

Had the misfortune of seeing two of these live(don’t worry. I’m not dumb enough to spend a trip to Tampa just for the Falcons. I’m here for other reasons aside from my Atlanta sports fandom lol). I really don’t see why these kinds of penalties can’t be reviewed liked targeting is. For those afraid the refs will never reverse on a judgment call, targeting calls get reversed every week. I think it’s worth it, especially in the NFL’s case where they can talk to New York and have them buzz down and reverse an obvious bad calling like the Brady one.

I thought I was upset about the call Saturday, bud I was livid Sunday. I’m a bigger college fan than pros, but that call against the Falcons was so damn bad it got me more upset than the one against us.

I agree. I'm a pretty casual fan of the Falcons anymore, but I was out of my mind on the Brady Baby call.

What ticks me off is that there is zero accountability for the refs. Everyone else involved in sports has to be responsible to the public for their performance (players, coaches, GMs), but the refs are protected like the bunch of wimps they evidently are (because they won't man-up for their mistakes.)

 

[leatherneckjacket]

All three calls were complete BS. There is no way for any of those players to defy gravity and stop their descent to the earth once they leave their feet. I was madder at our call, but that is because I care more about Tech than the other two teams. However, the two calls in the NFL were worse.

 

[LongforDodd]

He wasn’t a passer though. He was someone trying to avoid a sack and should be considered a runner. He was not in a throwing motion or position when the sack was initiated.

If not being in a throwing motion a condition for him being considered a runner, then I'll resume my booing of the ref.

 

[FlatsLander]

He wasn’t a passer though. He was someone trying to avoid a sack and should be considered a runner. He was not in a throwing motion or position when the sack was initiated.

That's my take, too. RTP is meant to prevent cheap shots and undue intimidation on a QB while he's unprotected in his throwing motion (and recently from being landed on after a tackle I guess). If he's not throwing, he's just a ball carrier. They might as well just say QBs are 2 hand touch in the pocket or something.

 

[link3945]

I think the Raiders one is correct by the rulebook. At the very least, it's borderline on the "don't land with all or most of your weight on the QB" rule, and refs are instructed to call it if in doubt. The Falcons and Tech ones were pretty egregiously wrong in my opinion.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I think the Raiders one is correct by the rulebook. At the very least, it's borderline on the "don't land with all or most of your weight on the QB" rule, and refs are instructed to call it if in doubt. The Falcons and Tech ones were pretty egregiously wrong in my opinion.

No, it is is not. The portion regarding "don't land with all or most of your weight on the QB" rule is only relevant to a QB that has thrown or is throwing the ball. It is not someone who still has the ball. What you are suggesting is a misinterpretation of the rule.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

What if its a lower tier qb? Does that change the penalty? I have to agree with what Aikman said. Take the dresses off.

Joe Namath was once asked that during his long college and pro ball career what was the hardest he was ever hit. Surprisingly, at least to me, he said it was in college. His exact words were: "I hate to give the bastards any credit but I got hit the hardest at Georgia Tech." He is probably talking about that 1962 game when he was really getting the business from Ted Davis and Billy Martin on just about every play. Much, much harder than how Riley was getting his hair mussed up in the video.

 

[85Escape]

Was there ever any response to the two calls (GT and Falcons?) I'm guessing the ACC will say nothing and quietly smirk since it was intended to help a NC school. I think I saw that the NFL rules committee was looking at the rule, but maybe they said "it's a judgement call". Did anyone see anything else official from either 'organization'?

 

[ibeattetris]

I think the Raiders one is correct by the rulebook. At the very least, it's borderline on the "don't land with all or most of your weight on the QB" rule, and refs are instructed to call it if in doubt. The Falcons and Tech ones were pretty egregiously wrong in my opinion.

If you watch the replay the defender reaches out with his arm to brace the impact. He only uses one hand because his other hand is holding the ball. It is hard to say the defender (actually at that point he was the *ball carrier*!) was doing anything wrong as he did his best to not land with all his weight.

 

[Root4GT]

No, it is is not. The portion regarding "don't land with all or most of your weight on the QB" rule is only relevant to a QB that has thrown or is throwing the ball. It is not someone who still has the ball. What you are suggesting is a misinterpretation of the rule.

NFL discussion on Roughing the Passer

"Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting a pass) in a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply." ... "Any physical acts against a player who is in a passing posture (i.e. before, during, or after a pass) which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will be called as fouls."

Notes

1. When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.

 

[CEB]

NFL discussion on Roughing the Passer

"Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting a pass) in a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply." ... "Any physical acts against a player who is in a passing posture (i.e. before, during, or after a pass) which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will be called as fouls."

Notes

1. When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.

Is there an actual rule change or “point of emphasis” this year? coincidence that several pretty routine plays were flagged the same week?
I think if they are going to emphasize throwing a flag “when in doubt,” then they are setting themselves up for yet another reviewable play.

 

[g0lftime]

It really comes down to being a judgement call. When you see multiple flags then it is egregious and easy to call. The refs could call holding on virtually every play. Now it has to be a tackle to get called.
Many many years ago we had a family friend that was a basketball ref. He called a few GT games when we were in the Metro conference. I once asked him about make up calls. After he had retired , he admitted it didn't happen often but it did happen occasionally if another official made a call that the other official felt was not called correctly in a critical situation. In BB a lot of refs let fouls go late in a game because they don't want a call to affect the outcome. Back then it was only two refs for basketball.
We were fortunate we got that offensive pass interference call on Duke in OT. We were on the verge of losing. Make up call??

 

[danny daniel]

It really comes down to being a judgement call. When you see multiple flags then it is egregious and easy to call. The refs could call holding on virtually every play. Now it has to be a tackle to get called.
Many many years ago we had a family friend that was a basketball ref. He called a few GT games when we were in the Metro conference. I once asked him about make up calls. After he had retired , he admitted it didn't happen often but it did happen occasionally if another official made a call that the other official felt was not called correctly in a critical situation. In BB a lot of refs let fouls go late in a game because they don't want a call to affect the outcome. Back then it was only two refs for basketball.
We were fortunate we got that offensive pass interference call on Duke in OT. We were on the verge of losing. Make up call??

I was hoping for a make up call but that was not it. The other Duke receiver broke on the snap and blocked our DB clearly before the ball was thrown. Definitely a penalty for a receiver to block before the ball is thrown. This good call did not make up for the previous bad call on #32.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

NFL discussion on Roughing the Passer

"Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting a pass) in a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply." ... "Any physical acts against a player who is in a passing posture (i.e. before, during, or after a pass) which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will be called as fouls."

Notes

1. When in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic against the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer.

It was not before, during or after a pass. The QB was not about to pass. He was trying to get away

 

[yoshiki2]

The first reason I liked football was because it was a real men's sport. Same as heavy weight box. Come on this is not soccer where you actually have to protect the #10

 

[Root4GT]

It was not before, during or after a pass. The QB was not about to pass. He was trying to get away

Which call are you referring to?

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Which call are you referring to?

Both NFL plays

 

[takethepoints]

I didn't think it was a close call, but the NFL ones aren't even comparable. Both NFL calls the QB never even threw the ball.

Trust me, I think the GT call was absolutely out of line, but the NFL ones were on another level.


I looked up the actual rule (NFL) earlier because I was having this discussion with my brother.

Brady was 100% not "during" a pass, and should not have been considered a passer. Carr's arm was moving back, but I think that is pretty weak, plus the defender braced the impact as he landed to make sure not all of his weight landed on the QB. Both of those were egregious beyond reason.

The NCAA rule applicable for our play:

There is 0% chance that that was "avoidable". Point of contact is also on the shoulder, removing any helmet to helmet concerns. I don't think the hit and landing warrant the "Forcibly driving the passer to the ground and landing on the passer" portion of the rule, but that might be what they are calling. I am pretty certain if all he does is hit the qb with no wrap up to the ground, they don't call it. I still think that hit is fine, and it is 100% incorrect to call roughing.

The NFL rule is so stringent that it is essentially don't hit the passer when he is in the act of passing. Like I said in another thread, this is an owner's rule, not a player's. The NFL owners don't want to carry more then one QB they have to pay big bucks and want their assets protected. I can understand that, but it deprives the game of the violence it has always had and, besides, pro QBs have lived with being sacked since the league started. If Joe Montana and Dan Marino could stand it so can Brady.

The college rule puts QBs in a special position: they are the only O players who can't be hit hard. Now think of yourself as a D player. You have a clear run at a QB and hit him hard just as the ball is released. How, pray, are you supposed to stop from hitting him when you are at full steam and he's just thrown the ball? The only way to avoid a penalty is to slow down as you rush so you don't disturb his throw. And that defeats the whole purpose of your play. As for "Forcibly driving the passer to the ground and landing on the passer with action that punishes the player" there are two problems. First, the QBs have a clear incentive to go all Italian soccer when they get hit, as witness Leonard last Saturday. Second, just who is going to gage what "forcibly driving" means? Different crews in different conferences are going to call this differently. The standard is simply too discretionary.

When I see more then anecdotal evidence that hitting QBs when they are in the act of throwing is causing levels of injury that are higher then those for other O positions (and I'm pretty sure, looking at the career lengths for NFL RBs, that I won't) this rule needs to be deep-sixed asap.

 

[bke1984]

and refs are instructed to call it if in doubt

They really should be instructed to hold the flag if in doubt