Wade just said they will try to get Osi's sack taken away...

[dallasfaniac]

not a good example to use since that play was a designed passing play, Romo was flushed out of the pocket, started to run, but you know how he always looks to pass when on the run, and that's exactly what he ended up doing

on the sack in question, the play looked like a running play that took too long to get going, since Romo almost let the clock run out before snapping the ball

How is it not a good example?

He ran with the ball and threw it just like Culpepper had done in the past. I was demonstrating with two examples that there is a gray area. Obviously the other play was a run gone wrong, but it could be argued that Romo was planning on faking the run and then passing into the endzone. How can you be certain that a play is a run or pass 100% when Romo does so much improv?

To say that it was definately a run just because of the blocking, because he didn't throw the ball, because of this and that, etc. suggests that a QB wouldn't ever pretend to hand the ball off or QB draw and then throw it, when it has been shown that they do.

In the Indi vs Pats game, there was the weirdest draw play I'd seen in awhile. The QB stepped back to throw, held the ball for like 3 seconds and then kind of held the ball out for the RB to grab and run with. He didn't put it into the basket, just kinda held it out there. If the QB gets tackled in the two seconds leading up to the exchange, is it a sack even though it is going to be a running play?

 

[Idgit]

This thread title make anyone else wince?
I hate the Giants as much as the next Cowboy fan, but it seems a little extreme. Why not just fine the guy?

 

[03EBZ06]

This thread title make anyone else wince?
I hate the Giants as much as the next Cowboy fan, but it seems a little extreme. Why not just fine the guy?

Why would you want a guy who made a legal play to get fined?

 

[Idgit]

Why would you want a guy who made a legal play to get fined?

Whoosh. Ok. Maybe I'm guilty of reaching a bit on that one, though.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I highly doubt they get that sack taken away. Like Theo said. How is the league to know it was a QB running play. Just take the play and move on Wade. We don't need to look like whiners to the league over a silly sack. Who cares? We dominated the Giants D yesterday. That and the win was all I cared about.

Makes zero sense to me.

true about not worrying about it and not to bother with going after something so petty....

that being said, this happens all the time and when a QB appears to be running the ball even if tackled behind the line, it is just a loss of yards on a running play... RBs have passed the ball before, does that mean they are sacked every time they do not make positive yards?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Offensive linemen don't have to pass block by dropping back, that's why they have the 5 yards before they are downfield.

Huh? Everything I see about the illegal man downfield rule refers to the line of scrimmage - no reference to 5 yards past. The officials are apparently told to call it if the linemen are more than 1 yard past the LOS. Is there something I'm missing about the rule?

 

[RomoIsBack]

that sack ain't count

 

[Jarv]

It looked to me like it was going to be that same shotgun draw to Julius that we ran a lot the last two games. And it looked like Romo forgot what side JJ was on, for some reason.

I remember the league taking away a sack from Roy in the first Eagles game in Parcells' first year. Reid said it was a running play, and that was that.

Ding Ding Ding...We have a winner. I had to read this whole thread to see if anyone mentioned this before I posted. Good memory Percy, it was no big deal for the leauge to do this then, it shouldn't be now either.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

How is it not a good example?

it's not good because it was not a running play, it was a passing play where Romo had the option to either continue the passing play, or he could have ran

so if he's tackled before he gets the ball off, and before he gets pass the LOS, it's a sack, because the play is a pass, not a run, it's only termed a rush for the QB if he has the ball and he passes the LOS w/ it

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Huh? Everything I see about the illegal man downfield rule refers to the line of scrimmage - no reference to 5 yards past. The officials are apparently told to call it if the linemen are more than 1 yard past the LOS. Is there something I'm missing about the rule?

you're right about the rule

I think guy is referencing the no-contact rule after 5 yards

 

[BrassCowboy]

it's not good because it was not a running play, it was a passing play where Romo had the option to either continue the passing play, or he could have ran

so if he's tackled before he gets the ball off, and before he gets pass the LOS, it's a sack, because the play is a pass, not a run, it's only termed a rush for the QB if he has the ball and he passes the LOS w/ it

Well then the dozen times I saw - runs by a qb behind the line of scrimmage that were not called sacks were incorrect,

I think the rule out of the rulebook would settle this matter

 

[Rack]

it's only termed a rush for the QB if he has the ball and he passes the LOS w/ it

Absolutely, postively INcorrect.


When a QB takes a knee, it's a rush.


When there's a mishap with the handoff and the QB has to keep it and gets tackled behind the LOS, it's a rush.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Absolutely, postively INcorrect.


When a QB takes a knee, it's a rush.


When there's a mishap with the handoff and the QB has to keep it and gets tackled behind the LOS, it's a rush.

hmm

neither apply here, but thanks for clarifying, had no idea about the knee being a rush, but cool

I'm pretty sure that if it's a passing play and the QB has the ball, and is flushed out of the pocket, and is tackled before he can cross the LOS, it's a sack

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Some people are acting like this is a big deal when it's not.

The NFL alters individual statistics after review on a regular basis. Several times this year players/teams were credited with sacks after review when they weren't credited with the sack during the game. The most common occurence is when a QB scrambles and reaches around the LOS.

There's been at least one other case this year where a sack was taken away from a player/team also.

Some of their changes seem trivial at best. There are cases of a QB fumble being changed to an INT and vice versa.

 

[Baileyneverfailey]

It looked to me like a weird QB draw, which would not be a sack.

 

[sonnyboy]

It looked to me like it was going to be that same shotgun draw to Julius that we ran a lot the last two games. And it looked like Romo forgot what side JJ was on, for some reason.

I remember the league taking away a sack from Roy in the first Eagles game in Parcells' first year. Reid said it was a running play, and that was that.

I remember this play as well. Think it ended the game. I remember thinking when Reid brought it up in the press conference, YOU LOST FAT BOY GET OVER IT AND GET USED TO IT.

I'll give Wade the benefit of the doubt for two reasons. One I'm a Cowboy homer and two to the victor go the spoils... we WON so we can make this request without sounded like a total loser.

With that said I think the whole thing is rediculous. Where does it end? Who's the judge? Ya sure that play certainly looked like a busted play, but does it really matter? Our QB was tackled behind the LOS. Doesnt matter why it happen, it happened. Its a sack!
If a RB screws up a draw play or a OL blows an assignment leading to the QB getting tackled behind the LOS does it matter?
What if you have a designed QB rollout with a run pass option and he gets sacked? What do you want to call that?

I'm going to lay down a simple edict to end the thread:
Doesnt matter if the QB is in the act of passing, running, farting, daydreaming or running the far-yawn play....if hes tackled behind the LOS its a SACK!

 

[Rack]

I'm going to lay down a simple edict to end the thread:
Doesnt matter if the QB is in the act of passing, running, farting, daydreaming or running the far-yawn play....if hes tackled behind the LOS its a SACK!

I'm sorry but this is absolutely NOT true. PERIOD.


Read the rulebook.

 

[sonnyboy]

I'm sorry but this is absolutely NOT true. PERIOD.


Read the rulebook.

NO I'm not saying it is true, obviously its not.

I was just playing king of the world, and laying down the new law!
With one exception. QB takes a knee, its not a sack.
EVERYTHING else, every other instance where a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack.

 

[Rack]

NO I'm not saying it is true, obviously its not.

I was just playing king of the world, and laying down the new law!
With one exception. QB takes a knee, its not a sack.
EVERYTHING else, every other instance where a QB is tackled behind the LOS, its a sack.

Oh ok, I gotcha.


Well, there are exceptions to this. If an offense decides the want to run the option (you never know), and the QB is tackled for a loss, it shouldn't be a sack.

 

[theogt]

I'm sorry but this is absolutely NOT true. PERIOD.


Read the rulebook.

Actually, the definition of a sack isn't listed in the official rulebook.

But the QB does have to have an intent to throw the ball. I just can't find anything "official."