September 24, 2018 08:52PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 4,224 Status: HOF Inductee |
If Allen had been in the pistol and taken the snap, I'd agree. But this is a double reverse, run/pass option. I don't know that I've ever seen a non-QB on an option play been counted as a sack. I understand the logic that you're offering but I don't agree with it. This was a WR that had the option to throw if it was there and since it wasn't, he tucked and run so it's a running play at that point. I'm not even sure if the complete term is "QB sack" or just sack. Like I said, I don't recall ever seeing a player that didn't take the snap(direct or shotgun) that wasn't a QB called a sack.Quote
zn
Quote
moklerman
That's a big assumption for the official scorer to make. Why would the assumption be that he's a passer when a) he's not a QB and b) he didn't pass it? He wasn't even tackled in the act of passing, he was tackled in the act of running.Quote
zn
Quote
moklerman
Does anyone know why the NFL is crediting the Rams with a sack on that play where Rivers took the snap, pitched it to a receiver who pitched it to Allen, who slowed, looked to pass, then pulled it down and tried to run? Why would it be a sack when the player wasn't a QB, didn't take the snap and on an option? Should have just been a run for loss IMO.
As I understand it, since he was a passer on that play, the fact that he pulls it down and runs is the same with a qb. The passer is sacked if tackled behind the LOS, whether he has pulled the ball down or not. Since Allen was a passer on that play, that's what counts.
Seems to me if it's going to boil down to the scorer assuming the intention of the player, when Allen was tackled he was clearly running and not passing. He had a RPO, was not a QB and didn't take the snap. To me, it would be the equivalent of charging a sack on a jet sweep that went for a loss.
He was a passer on that play. That was evident. It wasn't an assumption.
The play is here, at 5:24 in. Allen sets up, he's a passer.
You don't have to pass it to be the passer, you just need to set up to pass the ball.
And once he's a passer, it doesn't matter if he runs instead. At that point, it;s no different from when the qb is the passer. It's still a sack if the qb gets tackled behind the LOS if he pulls down and runs.
Think of it this way. When you sack a player, it's always the passer. A sack means tackling the passer behind the LOS. Vast vast majority of the time, the passer is a qb. This is one of those rare cases where the passer is not a qb. Doesn't matter, he's a passer. When the passer pulls the ball down to run it's still a sack.
....
Subject | Author | Views | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | moklerman | 747 | September 24, 2018 07:41PM |
Re: Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | zn | 267 | September 24, 2018 07:47PM |
Re: Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | moklerman | 219 | September 24, 2018 08:09PM |
Re: Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | zn | 148 | September 24, 2018 08:36PM |
Re: Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | moklerman | 138 | September 24, 2018 08:52PM |
Re: Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | zn | 126 | September 24, 2018 09:07PM |
Re: Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | moklerman | 118 | September 24, 2018 09:20PM |
Re: Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | zn | 126 | September 25, 2018 03:49AM |
Sounds like that sack cost you a FF game | JYB | 135 | September 25, 2018 03:51AM |
Re: Sounds like that sack cost you a FF game | moklerman | 114 | September 25, 2018 10:34AM |
Re: Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | RamsFanSinceLA | 133 | September 26, 2018 08:07AM |
Re: Keenan Allen - sacked?!? | NorCalRamFan | 135 | September 25, 2018 12:32AM |