CFZ Basham and Williams Roughing the Passer Flags and Rule

[jazzcat22]

Williams helmet mostly hit the quarterback's right side of the chest. It was a glancing blow from the helmet but the rule does not care. Neither do the refs.

Dallas TV announcers said it was called more because his head was lowered. But still was a little questionable. If he would have released him after the hit, instead of holding onto him as he hit the ground, it may not have been called. Or raised his head. But IMO if a player raises his head in that situation he is risking a neck injury. This is what the helmet and pads are for.

It probably looked worse to the live than on replay.

However, I think the refs called it, and will call anything close as to set a tone going into the season, that they will protect the QB.
Also, However, if that was one of our QB's, it may not have been called. We seen this for years. It has been proven over and over.

 

[Runwildboys]

I don’t think he can stop from landing on him after he dove at him. And if you dive your head will lead by default. So I guess the player can’t dive unless he aims to the right or left of the opponents body. Then I’m not sure how he can grab them.

They do it all the time.

 

[DallasEast]

Unfortunately, officiating in the NFL is far from universal and teams need to adjust to the way different crews call games.

Agreed.

 

[DallasEast]

Sorry, but in my opinion this is absurd. This allows for refs to call roughing anytime they want. Which opens up the possibility to tamper with games.

You will not get any argument from me.

 

[shabazz]

Sorry, but in my opinion this is absurd. This allows for refs to call roughing anytime they want. Which opens up the possibility to tamper with games.

Welcome to the present day world, my friend. Long standing beliefs and norms are being tampered with every day. If it can be changed or altered to be used as a means to an end…..it will.

 

[DallasEast]

POLL ADDED!

Added a poll on the Basham tackle. The poll is an option for both participating members and any lurking members not wishing to post comments but would like to offer their opinions silently. All voters have the option of changing their vote if necessary.

 

[G2]

I just saw the replay again and the QB did leave his feet, how the heck do you control that?? A Qb in a desperate situation can do this all day to draw a penalty.

You can't, that the issue I take with the penalty itself, not the call. They don't want all that weight on the chest of a QB.

 

[DallasEast]

On a slightly related note, NFL.com does a good job of including example videos with their rule summaries. However, some videos are not comprehensive in showing examples correlating to specific language in each rule. Take the Williams penalty for instance. The video does show examples like a defender's hand striking the quarterback's facemask but does not show anything that looks like what Williams did.

The videos are brief. The Roughing the Passer video is about 1 1/2 minutes long. In my opinion, all of the videos should be specific for every part of any rule. That would allow anyone researching a rule summary to see exactly what is supposedly taught to referees. Fans and media can then agree or disagree on any call by saying a video example resembles or looks nothing like the call itself.

Each video length should be as long as necessary. Perhaps not ten minutes long for sure but I would think three or four minutes tops would be adequate in illustrating an entire rule summary.

Just my two cents.

 

[ESisback]

Click this link for the complete rule and entire examples video.

In the old days, defensive players could stuff the quarterback. The old days are dead in the NFL. They will never return.

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 11, subparagraph b: 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...

Tackling/sacking the quarterback is a mental exercise in 2022. It's not 1972 anymore. The NFL does not want its quarterbacks pounded through the ground. The rule is an irritation if the player is not intentionally trying to injure the quarterback but not THINKING beforehand will result in a braindead penalty and should fall primarily on the player's shoulders only in my opinion.

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 11, subparagragh c: A defensive player must not use his helmet against a passer who is in a defenseless posture... (2) lowering the head and making forcible contact with any part of the helmet against any part of the passer’s body. This rule does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or non-crown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on a passer.

On the other hand, I believe coaches and player bear equal responsibility for erasing this tendency from inside the player's head. All the player needs to do is keep his head up. You must see who you are going to hit anyway. Eyes up. Less chance of a stupid penalty. Eyes down. Almost always a braindead penalty because the refs do not give a flip what part of the helmet hits ANY part of the quarterback's body.

Our pass rush SHOULD be much better this year, but with new emphasis on contact, the extra sacks will largely be negated by flags. I expect 1 or 2 times a game, a third down sack will be turned into a 15 yard first down, aiding opponent’s scoring drives. Wouldn’t surprise me if a handful of 3rd and 19 plays were turned into first downs by OC’s intentionally letting pass rushers by.

 

[Runwildboys]

If you say so (eyeroll).

I'm not the only one saying so, and since the "I don't wanna believe it, so it can't be true" argument rarely works, why don't you tell me what spearing is.

 

[Runwildboys]

Dallas TV announcers said it was called more because his head was lowered. But still was a little questionable. If he would have released him after the hit, instead of holding onto him as he hit the ground, it may not have been called. Or raised his head. But IMO if a player raises his head in that situation he is risking a neck injury. This is what the helmet and pads are for.

It probably looked worse to the live than on replay.

However, I think the refs called it, and will call anything close as to set a tone going into the season, that they will protect the QB.
Also, However, if that was one of our QB's, it may not have been called. We seen this for years. It has been proven over and over.

Are you thinking of the Basham hit, rather than the Williams hit?

 

[jazzcat22]

Are you thinking of the Basham hit, rather than the Williams hit?

yes more Bashem hit, but both for the helmet to the chest.
Still both cheap calls by the refs.

 

[Runwildboys]

yes more Bashem hit, but both for the helmet to the chest.
Still both cheap calls by the refs.

The Williams call was bad, IMO, but the Basham call was legit. I could see them not calling it, because it wasn't brutal, but going by the rules, it was a good call.

 

[OmerV]

I understand the call on Basham. A person might watch replays and make a case for why it shouldn't have been called, but ultimately I see what the refs called.

The one on Williams I see as bogus. Face mask was up, ball barely out of the QB's hand, and he held up rather than driving through the QB or into the ground. That's the kind of hit a defense would hope to see - hard enough to get the QB's attention, but still legal

 

[TX_Yid]

Looking at that Williams tackle, what were his options?

Don't lower his head, and he probably connects with his face mask against the QBs helmet. Instant roughing the passer penalty.
Lower head to avoid helmet to helmet contact, now the crown of the helmet is down likely drawing a roughing penalty.
Tackle just with his hands somehow?

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Feelings do not matter. Basham's head was up. He drew the penalty because he drove the quarterback into the ground. A simple tackle would have not drawn a flag.

The rule does not care about the split-second anyone perceives either. If Williams went in head up, the flag may not have been thrown.

The team must get a grip on these stupid penalties. Giving the opponent 15 yards and an automatic first down is too much in today's NFL, especially if your defense has not established itself as a dominant unit.

Here's what's worse. Giving a referee an opportunity to subjectively call the hit flagrant gets the player automatically disqualified. Do not give zebras an excuse to permanently sideline a player, especially if it is one of your best players on defense. Don't help refs. They do not care about Dallas winning anyway.

The Williams play, imo, was not roughing. I think that was a clean hit, and I'm not sure how else he's supposed to hit the QB there. Additionally, it looks like he's using his shoulder. Yes, his head lowers, but he's not, from what I see in th video, using it directly on the player. To me, it does not meet the language of "using the helmet against a passer in a defenceless position". Nor is he lowering his head and making forceable contact. If there is any contact, it's likely incidental, which is allowed. To me, he's coming in to wrap up on the hit. Unless the NFL switches to flag football, there's no way to remove the head completely from the game when pass rushing.

As for the hit in question, I'm not sure. On one hand, it's similar to the video, and he does appear to drive the QB to the group. So, probably yes there. That said, the head and back are not what falls first, unlike the rule example. The hits are different because of that, and he was hitting him just as the ball was being thrown. Part of the rule language states that the player cannot be using punishing or intimidating techniques. To me, that part is subjective and vague. If the player is trying to clothesline a player or use his helmet on the QB, then that's intimidating. If he's just trying to take him down and only puts him on his butt with that being the first part to hit, then I don't think it fits the language because he's not using an intimidating technique. The player is simply trying to get the QB to the ground to try to sack the QB. So, that's why I have it as not sure.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Williams didn't use his head. He used his shoulder with his head off to the side.
Plus, he even pulled up.

Exactly, which is a big reason, to me, that he shouldn't have been called for roughing.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Looking at that Williams tackle, what were his options?

Don't lower his head, and he probably connects with his face mask against the QBs helmet. Instant roughing the passer penalty.
Lower head to avoid helmet to helmet contact, now the crown of the helmet is down likely drawing a roughing penalty.
Tackle just with his hands somehow?

I think the NFL is dangerously teetering on becoming boring if they outlaw that kind of hit. Furthermore, I should point out that his hit would've been very much legal in rugby, and they don't have pads. Frankly, if the NFL wants an example of how to officiate a heavy contact sport that involves tackling, they should revisit the rules in rugby on how to tackle. If it's good enough for rugby, it's good enough for the NFL. plus, American Football has much of it's inspiration from rugby.

 

[DallasEast]

The Williams play, imo, was not roughing. I think that was a clean hit, and I'm not sure how else he's supposed to hit the QB there. Additionally, it looks like he's using his shoulder. Yes, his head lowers, but he's not, from what I see in th video, using it directly on the player. To me, it does not meet the language of "using the helmet against a passer in a defenceless position". Nor is he lowering his head and making forceable contact. If there is any contact, it's likely incidental, which is allowed. To me, he's coming in to wrap up on the hit. Unless the NFL switches to flag football, there's no way to remove the head completely from the game when pass rushing.

As for the hit in question, I'm not sure. On one hand, it's similar to the video, and he does appear to drive the QB to the group. So, probably yes there. That said, the head and back are not what falls first, unlike the rule example. The hits are different because of that, and he was hitting him just as the ball was being thrown. Part of the rule language states that the player cannot be using punishing or intimidating techniques. To me, that part is subjective and vague. If the player is trying to clothesline a player or use his helmet on the QB, then that's intimidating. If he's just trying to take him down and only puts him on his butt with that being the first part to hit, then I don't think it fits the language because he's not using an intimidating technique. The player is simply trying to get the QB to the ground to try to sack the QB. So, that's why I have it as not sure.

I believe thread responses have established there is a difference of opinion what "driving into the ground" means for different people. The video I posted of Isaiah Stanback, for example, illustrates one perspective. He immediately agreed Basham drove the quarterback into the ground with the tackle. Neither Babe Laufenberg nor Bill Jones disagreed with his assessment.

Tackling is a subject I have talked about many years on the forum. My own opinion was shaped by playing the game and decades of watching the game at all levels. Others, who have disagreed with my takes on tackling, have played the game and watched high school, college and professional games also. It continually fascinates me how brains behind different sets of eyes process what we all see.

 

[bsbellomy]

Probably. It would be nice (my opinion only) to compare one of those 50 to the Williams' call.

Well I had enough trouble watching this garbage product so I'm certainly not going to subject myself to 50+ more hours of it.