Roughing the passer.

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Turducken

Starter
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
568
Maybe we need to consider allowing QBs to choose to wear flags. If you wear the flags you would be easier to sack, but gain greater protection against roughing. If you don't want to wear the flags we go back to sack rules from 10 years ago. I'm not saying this to put down modern QB's for risk avoidance. Standing in the pocket while 300lb lineman come after you is pretty dangerous. I would expect most QB's (Goff included) would eventually choose to wear the flags. Probably everyone but Big Ben, Russell Wilson and Cam Newton. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be better than flagging the kinds of sacks they are flagging now.
 

Cydekikk

UDFA
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
61
NFL needs to get a handle on the roughing the passer rule. Now, I hate Clay Mathews and obviously am fine with them not penalizing Suh yesterday but I fail to see the difference between the two. Amazingly, the penalty while tackling with your helmet hasn't been a big deal so far this season like everyone thought it was. But the wrapping of QBs in bubble wrap is causing quite the variety in how refs call what is or isn't a penalty.


View: https://twitter.com/YourSports/status/1043954457191616512


View: https://twitter.com/AlexGelhar/status/1043989850481987584


If I'm a NFL defender I simply don't know what to do...

I envision a possible future scenario of a player resigning under contract because he feels he can't adequately do his job anymore due to the impossible physics the NFL requires...
 
Last edited:

Psycho_X

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
12,443
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
If I'm NFL defender I simply don't know what to do...

I envision a possible future scenario of a player resigning under contract because he feels he can't adequately do his job anymore due to the impossible physics the NFL requires...

Might start to make CBs the premium defensive position again as far as pay goes. They've always stayed up there but a good shut down CB is about to become more valuable than an edge rusher possibly.
 

thirteen28

I like pizza.
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
8,814
Name
Erik
Yeah saw that, really sucks for the big guy. At his age that might be a career ender too. But I doubt Roger Goodell will be crying over William Hayes.

You misspelled "Roger Goodell is a worthless piece of sh-t".

:)
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
35,258
Name
Stu
And Goff getting hit low from behind while throwing isn’t a penalty? Confused.
 

KNUCKLEHEAD

I won't say it unless you don't.
Joined
Sep 11, 2014
Messages
553
The game needs to evolve. Obviously the solution is to move to 300 lb. quarterbacks.
 

ReekofRams

Hall of Fame
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
3,879
Name
Reek
And according to Ed Hocuhli it was text book roughing because Matthews weight landed on the QB. You have to roll away after hitting them some how. So again, Suh's sack should have been a penalty because his whole weight landed on the QB. If you're going by the strict sense of the rule "no weight on the QB". It shouldn't be in my eyes but based on rules Suh's weight fell onto Rivers. So be prepared for that to be a penalty if the ref so chooses. Rules that cause refs to make judgement calls are never good.


https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-clay-matthews-hit-alex-002540306.html

The NFL’s new focus on roughing the passer has once again created a Sunday evening ruckus. And, once again, Packers linebacker Clay Matthews is smack dab in the middle of it all.

But the NFL insists that today’s call — a penalty arising from Matthews landing on Washington quarterback Alex Smith with all or most of his body weight — was the right call. Former NFL referee, and current NFL consultant, Ed Hocuhli explained the reasoning to PFT by phone, not long before the start of this week’s edition of Football Night in America.

Calling it a “textbook” case of roughing, Hochuli said that the hit by Matthews falls squarely within the point of emphasis regarding the roughing passer foul, as it relates to the placement of all or most of the defender’s body weight on the passer.

“They’ve been calling it this way for six weeks,” Hochuli said. “It’s as clear of an example of roughing the passer as you could have.”

So what should Matthews have done differently? Hochuli said that the solution is simple. Matthews had two steps before hitting Smith. The league expects Matthews in that situation to hit him and roll to the side, landing with Matthews’ body weight on the ground, not on the passer.

“If I could show an example of fully body weight on a passer,” Hochuli said, “that would be the play.”

Players, coaches, fans, and media may not like it that way, but that’s the way it is. The league has decided to protect its quarterbacks, because the league knows that the quality of the product suffers greatly when the best quarterbacks aren’t on the field.
But as a player you're taught to wrap your arm around them and drive them down so that you don't run the risk of the tackle being broken. Another problem is that when you tackle someone other than the QB you're allowed to land on them, as long as the helmet doesn't get involved. So now they're asking the tackler to automatically and instantly change the way he's been taught his whole life to tackle for only the QB, and run the risk of the QB breaking the tackle just because he can't tackle the way he's always been taught?

All I can say is we better get use to a whole lot of flags being thrown, a lot of frustrated players and coaches, and a lot of enmity between the refs and the players, enmity between the refs and coaches, a lot of enmity aimed at the league itself, broken televisions, and a decline in popularity for the NFL.
 

RhodyRams

Insert something clever here
Rams On Demand Sponsor
SportsBook Bookie
Moderator
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
12,891
In a way I am kind of glad AD99, Suh and company aren't racking up 5 -6 sacks a game because I know one team's fanbase would be going bonkers over the rule
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
35,258
Name
Stu
In a way I am kind of glad AD99, Suh and company aren't racking up 5 -6 sacks a game because I know one team's fanbase would be going bonkers over the rule
Thinking the same thing and also that coaches would be hammering the league to take action.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
24,911
Players, coaches, fans, and media may not like it that way, but that’s the way it is. The league has decided to protect its quarterbacks, because the league knows that the quality of the product suffers greatly when the best quarterbacks aren’t on the field.
This
NFL doesn't care about safety, it just wants QB's healthy so the game is better, more people watch and more revenue is created.
Period
 

Memento

Your (Somewhat) Friendly Neighborhood Authoress.
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
18,807
Name
Jemma
I'm still pissed at that Aaron Donald penalty in the Raiders game. Honestly - and I know that I'm biased because I love defense in all sports more than offense - let them fucking play, okay, Goodhell?!
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,536
Name
Mack
Couple things:

1) I've seen two different versions of the rule and which is correct matters. Is it "and" or "or" when it comes to "intentionally and violently drive the QB to the ground "and/or" land on the QB with all or most of the defender's weight?

If it's "or', then the idea of having a technical rule with ZERO instruction from the league of how a player is to avoid a rule violation is absurd. If it's "and", then this whole nonsense is worse because they aren't even reading their own rule correctly.

2) Once again, the league seems more intent on "being right" about an obscure interpretation as if this were a legal proceeding than in making sure the rules are clear for players at game speed.

3) Lastly, if they're going to stick with this, than they need to call "in the grasp" very, very liberally. In the Vikes/GB game, I think, GB was up and the defender hit him and backed off. Cousins then ran to his left and completed a pass to keep the drive going. There have been other instances of defenders not tackling a QB hard only to find the QB while in the grasp or after having been hit or driven backwards moves and makes a play.

If they're going to stick with this ridiculous rule, then at least call "in the grasp".