Sam Williams and Micah Parsons get the game balls

[Typhus]

Sam needs to be careful about that. You can see LVE looking around to see if a flag is going to be thrown.

LVE was just working out the kinks in his neck, he does that all the time.

 

[jazzcat22]

Dr. Jerry for clearing Dak to play.

 

[gimmesix]

LVE was just working out the kinks in his neck, he does that all the time.

And Sam was just making sure the officials knew that the runner was stopped.

 

[Typhus]

Who does the game ball go to on this one? I say Williams!

Sam gets the game ball.
It was his coming out party.
Opponents only thought they had to worry about Parsons.

 

[MarcusRock]

So he gets a sack and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you say it goes against the rules. All it goes against is your interpretation of the rules.

Clearly is the key word in the rules that you quoted. It leaves it heavily open for interpretation. My argument is that Goff wasn't trying to run, he was trying to escape pressure and he was tripped. It wasn't clear that he was trying to become a runner, only that he was trying to get away from the pressure. Few people who trip directly fall to the ground; they stumble to the ground, and if they are trying to protect the ball, they are going to pull it in close to their body while stumbling to avoid possibly fumbling.

I'll say that I only remember one play similar to this where the QB was ruled to be a runner when he was trying to get out of a sack, and it was later corrected to be a sack. Official scorers understand that sacks are an important statistic for defenders, so they are generally not going to interpret it as the QB clearly becoming a runner unless it's absolutely clear.

I've seen tons of football and lots of times a QB who didn't make it back to the LOS while running didn't have a sack counted against him. That's why I knew that a QB could become a runner even before I went looking for any rules. All I've ever said here was that according to the rules I posted he can become a runner after escaping pressure, which I believe he did while taking 5 steps upright with the ball tucked. He wasn't stumbling as you said, until Armstrong swiped at him and then he fell. As I said, that he was credited with a sack is a gift IMO. CeeDee Lamb was also really short of the first down in the Philly game too officially. It happens.

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't know, the more I watch the replay, the more I can see it going either way. Armstrong definitely made the tackle, and Goff didn't start to stumble until he tripped him up, but I'm not sure Goff's intention was to run for the yardage, because he was carrying the ball in front of himself, like he wanted to be ready to throw it. But that may be just the way he runs, I don't know.

If you blow up the video, the ball is tucked in one arm just like a RB. If he had the ball in 2 hands in front with a chance to cock his arm back and throw, then it's just like a QB scrambling while still looking down field. I don't know how you run with the ball like that upright for 5 steps and not be considered a runner but I'm sure Armstrong will take it and Micah is mad he didn't wrap up better.

 

[big dog cowboy]

If you like Williams now, just wait until next year.

 

[MarcusRock]

But you were wrong, just own up to it referee only fan.

Nice contribution. Stay on the porch, small dog. Did you think it was a catch too back in 14? You were wrong. Own up to it. Lol.

 

[gimmesix]

I've seen tons of football and lots of times a QB who didn't make it back to the LOS while running didn't have a sack counted against him. That's why I knew that a QB could become a runner even before I went looking for any rules. All I've ever said here was that according to the rules I posted he can become a runner after escaping pressure, which I believe he did while taking 5 steps upright with the ball tucked. He wasn't stumbling as you said, until Armstrong swiped at him and then he fell. As I said, that he was credited with a sack is a gift IMO. CeeDee Lamb was also really short of the first down in the Philly game too officially. It happens.

I only watch Cowboys games, so maybe you have. Like I said, I've only seen it once (that I can remember) and they went back and gave the player a sack. I think it is generally like speedkilz and madtowner said, generally when it's a pass play, it's going to be a sack when the quarterback is taken down behind the line of scrimmage. It's an easier standard than trying to determine if he clearly becomes a runner. For all we know, if Armstrong had not tripped him, he may have pulled up before crossing the line of scrimmage and threw a pass, after all Hooker was coming up from the secondary and Goff isn't much of a runner.

I don't think it was a gift. I think it is just generally how it's done because "clearly" isn't always clear.

 

[BAT]

Nice contribution. Stay on the porch, small dog. Did you think it was a catch too back in 14? You were wrong. Own up to it. Lol.

It was sack. PERIOD.

The only small dog here is the idiot trying to gaslight everyone.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about but you keep on doubling down.

 

[MarcusRock]

I only watch Cowboys games, so maybe you have. Like I said, I've only seen it once (that I can remember) and they went back and gave the player a sack. I think it is generally like speedkilz and madtowner said, generally when it's a pass play, it's going to be a sack when the quarterback is taken down behind the line of scrimmage. It's an easier standard than trying to determine if he clearly becomes a runner. For all we know, if Armstrong had not tripped him, he may have pulled up before crossing the line of scrimmage and threw a pass, after all Hooker was coming up from the secondary and Goff isn't much of a runner.

I don't think it was a gift. I think it is just generally how it's done because "clearly" isn't always clear.

Well, I've seen different over the years and wondered why there were not sacks credited to a defenders in those cases and have even heard announcers say that it was because the QB rushed. The fact that this play wasn't immediately ruled a sack is evidence that it could have been ruled he was clearly a runner and didn't matter that it was an intended pass play or not. Otherwise, it was clearly a pass play and he clearly got hit by Armstrong, and clearly didn't make it back to the LOS which makes it an easy ruling. They ruled it was a rush, then changed it. But it existed as a rush until they did and no one thought anything of it until after the game.

 

[MarcusRock]

It was sack. PERIOD.

The only small dog here is the idiot trying to gaslight everyone.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about but you keep on doubling down.

Therefore, Dez did not catch it, PERIOD. Now never yap about that play again. Lol.

 

[BAT]

Therefore, Dez did not catch it, PERIOD. Now never yap about that play again. Lol.

Who brought up Dez?

Moving goal posts again I see.

When you can't gaslight you resort to diversionary tactics.

You are better off quoting rules that do not apply. When you go too far away from your comfort zone you come across as someone who refuses to take their meds.

 

[gimmesix]

Well, I've seen different over the years and wondered why there were not sacks credited to a defenders in those cases and have even heard announcers say that it was because the QB rushed. The fact that this play wasn't immediately ruled a sack is evidence that it could have been ruled he was clearly a runner and didn't matter that it was an intended pass play or not. Otherwise, it was clearly a pass play and he clearly got hit by Armstrong, and clearly didn't make it back to the LOS which makes it an easy ruling. They ruled it was a rush, then changed it. But it existed as a rush until they did and no one thought anything of it until after the game.

Don't think that's true. Romo referred to it as a sack by Parsons shortly after it happened (but then seemed unsure later, probably because it was officially Armstrong's sack). I'm not sure when it was officially ruled a sack. Officials don't have a signal for when a tackle is a sack. At some point during the game, I thought the announcers said that we had five sacks, which would mean this one had been added at least by that point. I'm just saying that I don't know if there's evidence that it wasn't understood to be a sack when it happened. I think plays like that might cause fans hesitancy and even announcers, but official scorers who have been doing this for a while likely don't have much of an issue knowing whether it should be ruled a sack or not. They can get it wrong, of course, but I'm just not sure the evidence that you think was there was actually there. I think you may be cluttering it up.

 

[BAT]

And Micah is still nursing a groin injury.

 

[MarcusRock]

Who brought up Dez?

Moving goal posts again I see.

When you can't gaslight you resort to diversionary tactics.

You are better off quoting rules that do not apply. When you go too far away from your comfort zone you come across as someone who refuses to take their meds.

You didn't get what I was doing but that's no surprise. Too busy trying to do an "Ah-ha!" ... from the sidelines.

 

[BAT]

 

[BAT]

You didn't get what I was doing but that's no surprise. Too busy trying to do an "Ah-ha!" ... from the sidelines.

The only "ah-ha" twit is posting arguments that have zero bearing on actual play in question.

 

[MarcusRock]

Don't think that's true. Romo referred to it as a sack by Parsons shortly after it happened (but then seemed unsure later, probably because it was officially Armstrong's sack). I'm not sure when it was officially ruled a sack. Officials don't have a signal for when a tackle is a sack. At some point during the game, I thought the announcers said that we had five sacks, which would mean this one had been added at least by that point. I'm just saying that I don't know if there's evidence that it wasn't understood to be a sack when it happened. I think plays like that might cause fans hesitancy and even announcers, but official scorers who have been doing this for a while likely don't have much of an issue knowing whether it should be ruled a sack or not. They can get it wrong, of course, but I'm just not sure the evidence that you think was there was actually there. I think you may be cluttering it up.

Just going on the timing of the Tweet, which was after the game. But true it could have been under dispute during the game as to whether it was Armstrong or Parsons or a half for each, or that it was a disputed rush. Nantz called it as a "stumble for a loss of a couple" so he clearly thought it was a run and didn't call sack. Nantz also soon after said the Cowboys had 4 sacks when Romo was asking how many did Parsons have and Nantz said only 1. From that point until the end of the game, no one said the Cowboys had 5 sacks. So perhaps it was changed after the game.

 

[MarcusRock]

The only "ah-ha" twit is posting arguments that have zero bearing on actual play in question.

From the sidelines. Please commence with simply liking gimmesix's posts from from the porch and having some ax to grind with me as your contributions here.