Sam Williams and Micah Parsons get the game balls

[aikemirv]

On the play where Parsons tripped Goff and he stumbled forward- he sort of regained his balance but then Armstrong trips him causing him to fall forward and go to the ground. Armstrong was credited with the sack. At least that’s how CBS Sports Gametracker has it.

And that's fine. I could not tell from the replay if Armstrong hit him. I though he might have but they only showed 1 view. Goff was not in any way a running QB at the time!

 

[J-man]

I see he and Parsons becoming a dominate duo for years to come.

 

[Runwildboys]

Gotta work on his ball handling skills.

 

[Jarntt]

 

[speedkilz88]

I don't know if it's seen as quite that simple, but I would say that is generally true because you don't want to take sacks away from defenders for no reason. It's hard to judge when a QB who drops back for a pass has clearly decided to run. I think running QBs cloud the picture some because they may drop back to pass and then take off with it.

They also look at if there are receivers going out for a pass or if they are looking to block. If the OL is run or pass blocking etc.

 

[Ranched]

It's always nice seeing Dallas players receiving gratitude.

 

[gimmesix]

They also look at if there are receivers going out for a pass or if they are looking to block. If the OL is run or pass blocking etc.

I think it's important to err on the side of the defenders on those plays because sacks are a major stat for them. Just another tackle doesn't mean near as much. So I at least mostly agree with what you are saying. As I mentioned in this thread, there's no way to know if Goff would have tried to pull up and pass if Armstrong hadn't tripped him. He's not much of a runner and Hooker was charging up to stop him. It would be asking a lot of officials to determine, he's a passer; now, he's a runner; now he's a passer again. Much easier for them to go, that's a pass play, so it's a sack.

 

[MarcusRock]

And that's fine. I could not tell from the replay if Armstrong hit him. I though he might have but they only showed 1 view. Goff was not in any way a running QB at the time!

Except for running 5 steps and carrying the ball just like a RB does, sure. Lol.

 

[gimmesix]

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.

I can't remember if the comment about four sacks came before Parsons stripped the ball from Goff. It's kind of funny that Romo essentially credited Parsons during the broadcast with a sack on Armstrong's trip and then didn't credit him for one when he caused the fumble. Of course, it's not up to him. I just found it weird that he would say that.

 

[MarcusRock]

I can't remember if the comment about four sacks came before Parsons stripped the ball from Goff. It's kind of funny that Romo essentially credited Parsons during the broadcast with a sack on Armstrong's trip and then didn't credit him for one when he caused the fumble. Of course, it's not up to him. I just found it weird that he would say that.

I watched the video last night from the trip until the end of the game and when Romo asked about Parsons after the Armstrong trip, Nantz said Parsons didn't get a sack and that the Cowboys had 4 sacks as a team. Nantz' call was that it wasn't a sack.The team total was never mentioned after that through the end of the game so I believe it was changed after. It's clear by the rules that there's a possibility of it being a rush for a loss by a QB that's not a sack and also seems it existed that way after the play until changed later.