The Early and Late Games - Week 3

[CGI_Ram]

Rosen throws a pick in the late comeback attempt. Bears get one first down and it's over.

Yep!

Bam!

 

[Akrasian]

Rosen threw 1 int that counted, and another that was called back. Maybe Bradford's 2 interceptions over most of a game aren't all that bad?

 

[OldSchool]

View: https://twitter.com/MichaelDavSmith/status/1043977494658011142

 

[Angry Ram]

Suh’s Sack was no different, neither was sack in the Miami game.

The issue isn’t the rule, it’s the inconsistent application of the rule.

Ndamukong Suh didn't spear Phillip Rivers to the ground tho. He jumps on his backs and brings him down. He falls on top of him. The rule is you can't drive him to the ground. And while NS did fall on top of him, it's not forcibly driving him down i.e., not planting him down. Also, Phillip Rivers isn't defenseless. He's attempting to run forward, and not attempting a pass.It's a perfectly legal play and correctly a non-call.

https://www.therams.com/video/ndamukong-suh-takes-down-philip-rivers-for-first-sack-as-a-ram

1. A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (a) above. When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down or land on top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up the passer with the defensive player’s arms and not land on the passer with all or most of his body weight.

Clay Matthews did just the opposite. Driving him to the ground with all his weight while Alex Smith was attempting the pass. The media is obsessed with the no-helmet contact. Well that isn't the point, either.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

Yeah i don't understand all the controversy around the Matthews sack. Penalty all the way. But last week on cousins, that was a brutal call.

.

 

[jjab360]

View: https://twitter.com/MichaelDavSmith/status/1043977494658011142

Don't see how that's on Trubisky, that's the play design... I don't even know what a successful route combination would look like out of there anyway, super crowded

 

[OldSchool]

Don't see how that's on Trubisky, that's the play design... I don't even know what a successful route combination would look like out of there anyway, super crowded

Perhaps the play design and call in that situation is bad. But I'd wager most good NFL QB's would take advantage of having an uncovered guy in that kind of defensive setup.

 

[Mackeyser]

Ndamukong Suh didn't spear Phillip Rivers to the ground tho. He jumps on his backs and brings him down. He falls on top of him. The rule is you can't drive him to the ground. And while NS did fall on top of him, it's not forcibly driving him down i.e., not planting him down. Also, Phillip Rivers isn't defenseless. He's attempting to run forward, and not attempting a pass.It's a perfectly legal play and correctly a non-call.

https://www.therams.com/video/ndamukong-suh-takes-down-philip-rivers-for-first-sack-as-a-ram

1. A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (a) above. When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down or land on top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up the passer with the defensive player’s arms and not land on the passer with all or most of his body weight.

Clay Matthews did just the opposite. Driving him to the ground with all his weight while Alex Smith was attempting the pass. The media is obsessed with the no-helmet contact. Well that isn't the point, either.

None of the Matthews sacks did he “unnecessarily or violently throw him to the ground or land on top of him with all or most” of his weight.

And the Miami sack by William Hayes was exactly the same as the Matthews sack.

 

[Angry Ram]

.

Yeah i don't understand all the controversy around the Matthews sack. Penalty all the way. But last week on cousins, that was a brutal call.

.

That was the "when in doubt" part of the rule. Yeah looking back that shouldn't have been made. It looked like he drove him to the ground. The ref was saying he picked him up and that, but I don't agree with that.

Either way though, that's no excuse for the Packers letting the Vikings drive down the 60ish yards for the TD, AND the 2 point, and failing to score in OT.

 

[Angry Ram]

None of the Matthews sacks did he “unnecessarily or violently throw him to the ground or land on top of him with all or most” of his weight.

And the Miami sack by William Hayes was exactly the same as the Matthews sack.

No he drove him to the ground and landed square on top of him (basically all his weight was on Alex Smith's shoulder). It was the right call according to the rule (which I'm not arguing if anyone thinks it's a good or bad rule).

I can't find the Will Hayes sack, if you can provide it I'll look and make my input on it.

 

[Mackeyser]

It’s not just landing on the QB. That’s grammatically incorrect.

It’s unnecessarily and violently.

It’s almost impossible to sack a QB and not end up in some way on top.

The rule is meant to obviate the QB slam.

The NFL is only makes by it worse by arguing semantics incorrectly in an effort to support refs as being “technically” correct as opposed to adjusting how the refs call it.

 

[kurtfaulk]

It’s almost impossible to sack a QB and not end up in some way on top.

Did you watch the Youngblood highlights video?

.

 

[Akrasian]

The NFL is only makes by it worse by arguing semantics incorrectly in an effort to support refs as being “technically” correct as opposed to adjusting how the refs call it.

They can adjust how refs call it - but I suspect strongly that they try to do that in the offseason. Hard to train all the refs on the changes in how to call it in midseason. I think you'll find except in cases of extreme emergency, in all sports leagues interpretations of rules are handled in the offseason.

 

[Mackeyser]

Did you watch the Youngblood highlights video?

.

Yes, and QBs are bigger and stronger and tend to not go down on arm tackles as much.

 

[Mackeyser]

They can adjust how refs call it - but I suspect strongly that they try to do that in the offseason. Hard to train all the refs on the changes in how to call it in midseason. I think you'll find except in cases of extreme emergency, in all sports leagues interpretations of rules are handled in the offseason.

All the more reason for the NFL to have full time refs.

 

[Akrasian]

All the more reason for the NFL to have full time refs.

I agree they should. But leagues that have full time refs or umps still do the same thing in terms of training.

But the NFL is a League valued at well over $30 billion - it's ridiculous that they have part time officials.

 

[Angry Ram]

It’s not just landing on the QB. That’s grammatically incorrect.

It’s unnecessarily and violently.

Yes, that is why Clay got called. Speared him to the ground AND with all his weight on top of him.

It’s almost impossible to sack a QB and not end up in some way on top.

Umm, ask the majority of defenders in the league about that.

The rule is meant to obviate the QB slam.

Which Clay Matthews did on Alex Smith.

The NFL is only makes by it worse by arguing semantics incorrectly in an effort to support refs as being “technically” correct as opposed to adjusting how the refs call it.

Honestly the more I watch the Clay Matthews play, and all the while other team's top sacking defenders and their units not having this problem, the more I'm convinced this was the correct call. JJ Watt sacked Eli 3 times today, didn't have a problem. Tom Brady got sacked twice, no flags (and I don't think any defender drove him to the ground, either). Ndamukong Suh, Aaron Donald, Von Miller, Khalil Mack, Myles Garrett, etc etc. This list goes on.

 

[Mackeyser]

Yes, that is why Clay got called. Speared him to the ground AND with all his weight on top of him.



Umm, ask the majority of defenders in the league about that.



Which Clay Matthews did on Alex Smith.



Honestly the more I watch the Clay Matthews play, and all the while other team's top sacking defenders and their units not having this problem, the more I'm convinced this was the correct call. JJ Watt sacked Eli 3 times today, didn't have a problem. Tom Brady got sacked twice, no flags (and I don't think any defender drove him to the ground, either). Ndamukong Suh, Aaron Donald, Von Miller, Khalil Mack, Myles Garrett, etc etc. This list goes on.

Almost none you mentioned were straight shots like Matthews had...and I’ll be buggered if I could tell the difference between the Matthews sack today and the Von Miller 3rd sack on Wilson last week.

Also, why was Rodgers allowed to be suplexed to the ground WITH the weight of the defender on him and have his head bounced off the carpet and... nothing. THAT play was a primo example of what should be a roughing call and the ref didn’t see it? NONE of the refs saw it?

I seriously give up trying to figure out this league. Finally figure out what a catch is and now we don’t know what differentiates roughing and a sack?

Lastly, the rule was never intended to be ANY weight on the QB. This was discussed preseason.

The “intentionally and violently” part was meant to apply to both parts of the sentence. It’s only in the blind support for the refs union (another bit for the conspiracy crowd) that this silly and wrong argument is being had.

TL;dr the rule was NEVER about not putting ones weight on the QB. It was about intentionally and violently driving ones weight into the QB.

There’s a big difference and this wasn’t how the NFL talked about this prior to the season.

 

[Karate61]

To be technical, it was that Matthews first "lifted the QB upward" (then drove back to the ground). "Lifting" (followed by driving tonthe ground) was the trigger to call the penalty.

 

[Mackeyser]

To be technical, it was that Matthews first "lifted the QB upward" (then drove back to the ground). "Lifting" (followed by driving tonthe ground) was the trigger to call the penalty.

I could...maybe... see that for his 2nd sack, but the last one?

Pure nonsense...ESPECIALLY because in the same game...same referees... Rodgers was literally thrown down and landed on intentionally and violently and??? nothing. So the call they are trying to say is the correct call based on an improper grammatical interpretation of their own rules....isn't being enforced consistently.

What's frustrating is that the sentence reads:

(modifier) [phrase one] and [phrase two]

The way grammar works is that the modifier is understood to apply to both because of the use of the conjunction, "and".

If the modifier is only meant to modify the initial phrase, then the use of "or" is the appropriate conjunction.

Thus, if the weight on the QB was the sole qualifier for a foul, then the sentence would be:

..."intentionally and violently drive the QB into the ground OR fall on him with all or most of the defender's weight" (paraphrasing)

Since they used "and", it means (and grammar really matters when writing rules) that the "intentionally and violently" modifier applies to both phrases. Using "and" with a modifier is the same as saying, "intentionally and violently drive the QB to the ground or intentionally and violently land with all or most of the defender's weight..."

This matters because if they'd used the conjunction, "or", then they would be correct and Matthews would have to twist QBs down or whatever, but the rule is essentially, "don't land on QBs".

If they wanted that rule, they should have just written that. Instead, they did a fantastic job of writing a different and very confusing rule and then enforcing some intent which wasn't even discussed in the off-season.

Again, all this based on an incorrect grammar interpretation.

Couple a lot of people in the NFL and Referee's association not knowing basic grammar along with the refs enforcing the rule in a way which wasn't discussed in the off-season and I can understand why defenders are so confused.