www.hoganflys.com Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 From everything I understand about football, if it is clearly a passing play and the quarterback is tackled behind the line of scrimmage, the play should be classified as a sack. With the Steelers 2nd to last play of the night (right before their last play, which was a punt to essentially end the game) Rothlesburger mishandled the snap when he was the only player in the backfield, making it an obvious pass play. He subsequently covered the ball on the ground and was touched down. Am I wrong in thinking this should be considered a sack? The stats that came out after the game called it a running play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tford Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 An aborted snap is a fumble and Ben fell on it. That's a non-forced fumble and a tackle of the guy who recovered the ball. If he picks it up with the intent of throwing it and gets hit, it's a sack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 You're at least wrong in thinking that you should be trying to decide what it is in terms of how to score it. You absolutely have to go by the official ruling on all plays or you open up a nasty can of worms. If the NFL is not calling it a sack, it's not a sack. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 How can you sack a QB who never had the ball? Once it hit the ground, it was a fumble by the center. Roethlisberger should have gotten credit for a recovered fumble, but no defensive points should be awarded for a sack...at the point they downed Roethlisberger, he clearly was not a passer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) How can you sack a QB who never had the ball? Once it hit the ground, it was a fumble by the center. Roethlisberger should have gotten credit for a recovered fumble, but no defensive points should be awarded for a sack...at the point they downed Roethlisberger, he clearly was not a passer. incorrect, it is a fumble on the QB (1:50) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger FUMBLES (Aborted) at PIT 21, and recovers at PIT 11. B.Roethlisberger to PIT 11 for no gain (A.Brooks). B.Roethlisberger credited with rush of 0-yds. the red bold is for the OP Edited December 20, 2011 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.hoganflys.com Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Thanks Keggerz. Excellent explanation. Detlef, no one is trying to change official scoring...incorrect assumption on your part. So, if the QB intended to pass the ball (clearly it was not a running play) but fumbled, recovered, and was downed, that could be considered a sack? We all know it is possible for a QB to fumble the ball away and a defense may be credited with both a sack and a fumble on the same play, which also happened in this game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Thanks Keggerz. Excellent explanation. Detlef, no one is trying to change official scoring...incorrect assumption on your part. So, if the QB intended to pass the ball (clearly it was not a running play) but fumbled, recovered, and was downed, that could be considered a sack? We all know it is possible for a QB to fumble the ball away and a defense may be credited with both a sack and a fumble on the same play, which also happened in this game. The experts might be able to explain better, but I believe the underlined part only happens when the QB fumbles the ball in the process of getting sacked or hit by the defensive player. If he just fumbles (without getting hit) and falls on it, then is tackled I'm not sure it is a sack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Thanks Keggerz. Excellent explanation. Detlef, no one is trying to change official scoring...incorrect assumption on your part. So, if the QB intended to pass the ball (clearly it was not a running play) but fumbled, recovered, and was downed, that could be considered a sack? We all know it is possible for a QB to fumble the ball away and a defense may be credited with both a sack and a fumble on the same play, which also happened in this game. Apologies. This being a FF site, that is usually the root of questions like this. Someone lost by a point and are wondering why what they thought was a sack was not called a sack. Or something like that. And, in those cases, I think you absolutely have to go with the official ruling. As far as "clearly it wasn't a running play", I think you simply can't establish that until the QB makes some indication that he plans to pass the ball. Logically, and considering Big Ben's hobbled state, we can all assume that he wasn't going to run a QB draw, but I'd prefer that those in charge of official stats used a more cut and dry criteria. And, given the fact that the play never really got started... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 incorrect, it is a fumble on the QB (1:50) (Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger FUMBLES (Aborted) at PIT 21, and recovers at PIT 11. B.Roethlisberger to PIT 11 for no gain (A.Brooks). B.Roethlisberger credited with rush of 0-yds. the red bold is for the OP I"m kind of shocked at that. The QB never had possession of the ball. Similar in concept to how a RB isn't credited with a fumble on a bobbled exchange....the QB is because he is the last one with possession. In this case, I would have placed the fumble on the center, since he was the last one with possession. Any idea why they credit the QB with a fumble when the snap hit him and bounced away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I"m kind of shocked at that. The QB never had possession of the ball. Similar in concept to how a RB isn't credited with a fumble on a bobbled exchange....the QB is because he is the last one with possession. In this case, I would have placed the fumble on the center, since he was the last one with possession. Any idea why they credit the QB with a fumble when the snap hit him and bounced away? They don't consider the snapper (usually center) as a ball carrier so it goes to whoever was supposed to receive the snap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 They don't consider the snapper (usually center) as a ball carrier so it goes to whoever was supposed to receive the snap. So suppose the snap goes clear over the QBs head....he never touches it, and its recovered by the defense. The QB is still credited with a fumble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 So suppose the snap goes clear over the QBs head....he never touches it, and its recovered by the defense. The QB is still credited with a fumble? yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 yep wow...man, you learn something new everyday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDawg Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Yeah ... well, my team was one of those who lost this wk with the 49r's Def needing only one more point to tie (and we had the tiebreaker advantage). I was obviously hoping for the ruling to be a sack as well. But, with the fact that Roethlisberger just fell on the "mishandled snap" ... and that is what it was classified as ... it falls into an aborted play and thus out of the parameters of a sack. Much like the situation "kneel down" that a Qb does to run out the clock at the end of a half or game. But, if Big Ben would instead, picked up the ball and would have been standing at the time of the "tackle" (behind the line of scrimage with play in action) ...... would you agree that now the stats guy would have a little more reason to call it a "sack' ? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.