botched snaps? (1 Viewer)

[dansav]

Its not considered a sack. The ruling is as a fumble recover and a tackle for a loss. Interesting....

I assumed it was a sack, anyone else?

 

[bentley]

Who would get credit for the sack?

Why would you assume that when no contact is made with the QB?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Who would get credit for the sack?Why would you assume that when no contact is made with the QB?

So when Favre laid down for Strahan...oh wait, nevermind

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I believe it's a sack if the QB picks it up and looks downfield in an attempt to make a throw, but if the QB picks up the ball and runs around with it or if he just dives on the ball and doesn't move than it's not a sack.

 

[SlaX]

A sack requires a passing motion. Also, a muffed snap is automatically declared a fumble regardless.

 

[riggidy]

Kerrigan 91 would get the sack if its changed. As of now he has a tackle

 

[dansav]

some very interesting responses so far. I dont believe a sack requires a throwing motion..

Also the defensive player that tackles the QB to the ground while the ball is his posession would get credit for the sack.

 

[dansav]

Who would get credit for the sack?Why would you assume that when no contact is made with the QB?

The defensive player the takes the Qb to the ground while the ball is in the hands of the QB

 

[footballnerd]

we talking bad snap or forced fumble? forced fumble is a sack, not sure if a bad snap would just be an offensive fumble recover...

 

[bentley]

Who would get credit for the sack?Why would you assume that when no contact is made with the QB?

The defensive player the takes the Qb to the ground while the ball is in the hands of the QB

Gotcha. My bad. I think QB intent (run vs. pass) after he picks the ball up would be the deciding factor.

 

[texasheat]

Phil Costa had 3.5 sacks tonight.

GG Phil

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I dont believe a sack requires a throwing motion..

The QB doesn't have to make a throwing motion for it to be a sack, he just must have the intention to throw a pass when he is tackled. So when Romo just dove on the ball to retain possession there was no intention to throw a pass when Kerrigan tackled him, hence it was a tackle for loss and not a sack.

 

[The Jerk]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

 

[Sarnoff]

If the QB doesn't receive the ball, it can't be a sack. A botched handoff is like any fumble, and the QB becomes just some guy on the field scrambling for the ball. If he's the first to touch it and he falls on it and is down, that's just a regular old tackle... same as if a WR, TE, RB, or lineman happened to be the first to get to the loose ball and fall on it. It's not a special tackle just because of his position designation. Now, if he picks it up, gets to his feet, and starts to try and make a play out of it somehow and is then tackled, that's a sack as he's operating as a QB specifically.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

Really good explanation! Seems like there is some lattitude for officials to designate whether a tackle qualifies as a sack or not.My thinking is that the key is the sufficient recovery to a point where the QB intends to advance the play of the ball by either handing off or throwing the ball (as opposed to just the intent to find a receiver and throw downfield, as you and others have mentioned).

After a botched snap (or handoff), if the QB has recovered the ball and is still behind the line of scrimmage, and has recoverd sufficiently to the point where he could still either throw a pass or hand off to a runner, but is tackled before he can do either, that seems to qualify as a sack.

I looked through the 2010 rulebook, and while I couldn't find anything specific after an admittedly brief search, I did find the following definition of intent to pass. While relating to defensive blocking restrictions, as opposed to this situation, the definition does describe the "intent to pass the ball" as inclusive of both run and pass plays:

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

So if the QB recovers the botched snap and recovers sufficiently to try and hand the ball off and is tackled before he can do so, that seems to qualify as a sack.If the QB recovers the botched snap and, instead of intending to hand off or throw the ball, sufficiently recovers to the point where he starts to run laterally, and is tackled before he crosses the line of scrimmage, I would think that, too, would qualify as a sack.

 

[Short Corner]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

Really good explanation! Seems like there is some lattitude for officials to designate whether a tackle qualifies as a sack or not.My thinking is that the key is the sufficient recovery to a point where the QB intends to advance the play of the ball by either handing off or throwing the ball (as opposed to just the intent to find a receiver and throw downfield, as you and others have mentioned).

After a botched snap (or handoff), if the QB has recovered the ball and is still behind the line of scrimmage, and has recoverd sufficiently to the point where he could still either throw a pass or hand off to a runner, but is tackled before he can do either, that seems to qualify as a sack.

I looked through the 2010 rulebook, and while I couldn't find anything specific after an admittedly brief search, I did find the following definition of intent to pass. While relating to defensive blocking restrictions, as opposed to this situation, the definition does describe the "intent to pass the ball" as inclusive of both run and pass plays:

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

So if the QB recovers the botched snap and recovers sufficiently to try and hand the ball off and is tackled before he can do so, that seems to qualify as a sack.If the QB recovers the botched snap and, instead of intending to hand off or throw the ball, sufficiently recovers to the point where he starts to run laterally, and is tackled before he crosses the line of scrimmage, I would think that, too, would qualify as a sack.

Handing the ball off would hard to interpret as a pass play. Running laterally would depend on other factors. Is he pulling the ball up with intent to pass?

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

Really good explanation! Seems like there is some lattitude for officials to designate whether a tackle qualifies as a sack or not.My thinking is that the key is the sufficient recovery to a point where the QB intends to advance the play of the ball by either handing off or throwing the ball (as opposed to just the intent to find a receiver and throw downfield, as you and others have mentioned).

After a botched snap (or handoff), if the QB has recovered the ball and is still behind the line of scrimmage, and has recoverd sufficiently to the point where he could still either throw a pass or hand off to a runner, but is tackled before he can do either, that seems to qualify as a sack.

I looked through the 2010 rulebook, and while I couldn't find anything specific after an admittedly brief search, I did find the following definition of intent to pass. While relating to defensive blocking restrictions, as opposed to this situation, the definition does describe the "intent to pass the ball" as inclusive of both run and pass plays:

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

So if the QB recovers the botched snap and recovers sufficiently to try and hand the ball off and is tackled before he can do so, that seems to qualify as a sack.If the QB recovers the botched snap and, instead of intending to hand off or throw the ball, sufficiently recovers to the point where he starts to run laterally, and is tackled before he crosses the line of scrimmage, I would think that, too, would qualify as a sack.

Handing the ball off would hard to interpret as a pass play. Running laterally would depend on other factors. Is he pulling the ball up with intent to pass?

The NFL rulebook's definition of intent to pass the ball (quoted above) includes the act of handing off or pitching the ball to a back. I am assuming that the same definition of intent to pass would apply here, and as such, not be limited to just the motions of preapring to throw the ball downfield.

 

[Short Corner]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

Really good explanation! Seems like there is some lattitude for officials to designate whether a tackle qualifies as a sack or not.My thinking is that the key is the sufficient recovery to a point where the QB intends to advance the play of the ball by either handing off or throwing the ball (as opposed to just the intent to find a receiver and throw downfield, as you and others have mentioned).

After a botched snap (or handoff), if the QB has recovered the ball and is still behind the line of scrimmage, and has recoverd sufficiently to the point where he could still either throw a pass or hand off to a runner, but is tackled before he can do either, that seems to qualify as a sack.

I looked through the 2010 rulebook, and while I couldn't find anything specific after an admittedly brief search, I did find the following definition of intent to pass. While relating to defensive blocking restrictions, as opposed to this situation, the definition does describe the "intent to pass the ball" as inclusive of both run and pass plays:

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

So if the QB recovers the botched snap and recovers sufficiently to try and hand the ball off and is tackled before he can do so, that seems to qualify as a sack.If the QB recovers the botched snap and, instead of intending to hand off or throw the ball, sufficiently recovers to the point where he starts to run laterally, and is tackled before he crosses the line of scrimmage, I would think that, too, would qualify as a sack.

Handing the ball off would hard to interpret as a pass play. Running laterally would depend on other factors. Is he pulling the ball up with intent to pass?

The NFL rulebook's definition of intent to pass the ball (quoted above) includes the act of handing off or pitching the ball to a back. I am assuming that the same definition of intent to pass would apply here, and as such, not be limited to just the motions of preapring to throw the ball downfield.

You are implying a definition here where none is being made. No where in the part you bolded does it say that those actions are equivalent to an attempt to pass.

 

[B-Deep]

Phil Costa had 3.5 sacks tonight.GG Phil

 

[dansav]

For arguement sake lets use an example last night.

(2:56)(shotgun)9-T.Romo aborted. 67-P. Costa Fumbles at DAL 35, recovered by DAL-9-T.Romo at DAL 30. 9-T.Romo to DAL 30 for no gain (91-R.Kerrigan)

What I saw on TV was a botched (early) snap to Romo who wasn't expecting the ball. The ball hit his throwing hand as he reached out for it, the ball bounced directly to his right and both the RB and Romo went for the ball. Romo gained possesion of the ball and was standing completely upright and was tackled by 91 R. Kerrigan.

How would you guys interupt this play. It was obviously scored a tackle for a loss, I am just having a tought time grasping the rule or if it really is a judgement call by the scorer of the game.

 

[B-Deep]

For arguement sake lets use an example last night. (2:56)(shotgun)9-T.Romo aborted. 67-P. Costa Fumbles at DAL 35, recovered by DAL-9-T.Romo at DAL 30. 9-T.Romo to DAL 30 for no gain (91-R.Kerrigan)What I saw on TV was a botched (early) snap to Romo who wasn't expecting the ball. The ball hit his throwing hand as he reached out for it, the ball bounced directly to his right and both the RB and Romo went for the ball. Romo gained possesion of the ball and was standing completely upright and was tackled by 91 R. Kerrigan.How would you guys interupt this play. It was obviously scored a tackle for a loss, I am just having a tought time grasping the rule or if it really is a judgement call by the scorer of the game.

i'd call this play a disasterif it is a sack or tackle for loss for fantasy players or stat wonks is not really important

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

Really good explanation! Seems like there is some lattitude for officials to designate whether a tackle qualifies as a sack or not.My thinking is that the key is the sufficient recovery to a point where the QB intends to advance the play of the ball by either handing off or throwing the ball (as opposed to just the intent to find a receiver and throw downfield, as you and others have mentioned).

After a botched snap (or handoff), if the QB has recovered the ball and is still behind the line of scrimmage, and has recoverd sufficiently to the point where he could still either throw a pass or hand off to a runner, but is tackled before he can do either, that seems to qualify as a sack.

I looked through the 2010 rulebook, and while I couldn't find anything specific after an admittedly brief search, I did find the following definition of intent to pass. While relating to defensive blocking restrictions, as opposed to this situation, the definition does describe the "intent to pass the ball" as inclusive of both run and pass plays:

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

So if the QB recovers the botched snap and recovers sufficiently to try and hand the ball off and is tackled before he can do so, that seems to qualify as a sack.If the QB recovers the botched snap and, instead of intending to hand off or throw the ball, sufficiently recovers to the point where he starts to run laterally, and is tackled before he crosses the line of scrimmage, I would think that, too, would qualify as a sack.

Handing the ball off would hard to interpret as a pass play. Running laterally would depend on other factors. Is he pulling the ball up with intent to pass?

The NFL rulebook's definition of intent to pass the ball (quoted above) includes the act of handing off or pitching the ball to a back. I am assuming that the same definition of intent to pass would apply here, and as such, not be limited to just the motions of preapring to throw the ball downfield.

You are implying a definition here where none is being made. No where in the part you bolded does it say that those actions are equivalent to an attempt to pass.

Seriously? The bolded part includes the words "intent to pass" then parenthetically defines what an intent to pass means -- a definition that includes "hands off the ball."You seem to be thinking of a pass as a throw downfield; this definition of a pass from the rulebook includes both a throw and a "pass-off" to a back.

dansav, great example -- I would call that a sack, but clearly was not ruled that way. I would love clarity on whether there is actually a rule pertaining to this situation, or if referee judgement is simply used whenever there is a botched snap and the QB recovers to the point where he can still make a play (as opposed to just falling on the ball).

 

[Short Corner]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

Really good explanation! Seems like there is some lattitude for officials to designate whether a tackle qualifies as a sack or not.My thinking is that the key is the sufficient recovery to a point where the QB intends to advance the play of the ball by either handing off or throwing the ball (as opposed to just the intent to find a receiver and throw downfield, as you and others have mentioned).

After a botched snap (or handoff), if the QB has recovered the ball and is still behind the line of scrimmage, and has recoverd sufficiently to the point where he could still either throw a pass or hand off to a runner, but is tackled before he can do either, that seems to qualify as a sack.

I looked through the 2010 rulebook, and while I couldn't find anything specific after an admittedly brief search, I did find the following definition of intent to pass. While relating to defensive blocking restrictions, as opposed to this situation, the definition does describe the "intent to pass the ball" as inclusive of both run and pass plays:

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

So if the QB recovers the botched snap and recovers sufficiently to try and hand the ball off and is tackled before he can do so, that seems to qualify as a sack.If the QB recovers the botched snap and, instead of intending to hand off or throw the ball, sufficiently recovers to the point where he starts to run laterally, and is tackled before he crosses the line of scrimmage, I would think that, too, would qualify as a sack.

Handing the ball off would hard to interpret as a pass play. Running laterally would depend on other factors. Is he pulling the ball up with intent to pass?

The NFL rulebook's definition of intent to pass the ball (quoted above) includes the act of handing off or pitching the ball to a back. I am assuming that the same definition of intent to pass would apply here, and as such, not be limited to just the motions of preapring to throw the ball downfield.

You are implying a definition here where none is being made. No where in the part you bolded does it say that those actions are equivalent to an attempt to pass.

Seriously? The bolded part includes the words "intent to pass" then parenthetically defines what an intent to pass means -- a definition that includes "hands off the ball."You seem to be thinking of a pass as a throw downfield; this definition of a pass from the rulebook includes both a throw and a "pass-off" to a back.

dansav, great example -- I would call that a sack, but clearly was not ruled that way. I would love clarity on whether there is actually a rule pertaining to this situation, or if referee judgement is simply used whenever there is a botched snap and the QB recovers to the point where he can still make a play (as opposed to just falling on the ball).

It also says demonstrates no further intent to pass. Amazing how far a little common sense and reading comprehension will go. Unless you really believe that handing the ball is an intent to pass. Personally I think handing the bal off demonstrates no further intent to pass but I may be in the minority here.

 

[belljr]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

Really good explanation! Seems like there is some lattitude for officials to designate whether a tackle qualifies as a sack or not.My thinking is that the key is the sufficient recovery to a point where the QB intends to advance the play of the ball by either handing off or throwing the ball (as opposed to just the intent to find a receiver and throw downfield, as you and others have mentioned).

After a botched snap (or handoff), if the QB has recovered the ball and is still behind the line of scrimmage, and has recoverd sufficiently to the point where he could still either throw a pass or hand off to a runner, but is tackled before he can do either, that seems to qualify as a sack.

I looked through the 2010 rulebook, and while I couldn't find anything specific after an admittedly brief search, I did find the following definition of intent to pass. While relating to defensive blocking restrictions, as opposed to this situation, the definition does describe the "intent to pass the ball" as inclusive of both run and pass plays:

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

So if the QB recovers the botched snap and recovers sufficiently to try and hand the ball off and is tackled before he can do so, that seems to qualify as a sack.If the QB recovers the botched snap and, instead of intending to hand off or throw the ball, sufficiently recovers to the point where he starts to run laterally, and is tackled before he crosses the line of scrimmage, I would think that, too, would qualify as a sack.

Handing the ball off would hard to interpret as a pass play. Running laterally would depend on other factors. Is he pulling the ball up with intent to pass?

The NFL rulebook's definition of intent to pass the ball (quoted above) includes the act of handing off or pitching the ball to a back. I am assuming that the same definition of intent to pass would apply here, and as such, not be limited to just the motions of preapring to throw the ball downfield.

You are implying a definition here where none is being made. No where in the part you bolded does it say that those actions are equivalent to an attempt to pass.

Seriously? The bolded part includes the words "intent to pass" then parenthetically defines what an intent to pass means -- a definition that includes "hands off the ball."You seem to be thinking of a pass as a throw downfield; this definition of a pass from the rulebook includes both a throw and a "pass-off" to a back.

dansav, great example -- I would call that a sack, but clearly was not ruled that way. I would love clarity on whether there is actually a rule pertaining to this situation, or if referee judgement is simply used whenever there is a botched snap and the QB recovers to the point where he can still make a play (as opposed to just falling on the ball).

That's not giving the definition of what a intent to pass is. That's giving clarification of a player that will no longer have intention of passing. So your rule you posted is basically saying - if a player demonstrates no more intention of passing possibly because of one of the reasons posted than the defensive player "restrictions" are lifted.The Jerk summed it up best

 

[Bronco Nation]

Epic reading comprehension fail, Stompin'!

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

Really good explanation! Seems like there is some lattitude for officials to designate whether a tackle qualifies as a sack or not.My thinking is that the key is the sufficient recovery to a point where the QB intends to advance the play of the ball by either handing off or throwing the ball (as opposed to just the intent to find a receiver and throw downfield, as you and others have mentioned).

After a botched snap (or handoff), if the QB has recovered the ball and is still behind the line of scrimmage, and has recoverd sufficiently to the point where he could still either throw a pass or hand off to a runner, but is tackled before he can do either, that seems to qualify as a sack.

I looked through the 2010 rulebook, and while I couldn't find anything specific after an admittedly brief search, I did find the following definition of intent to pass. While relating to defensive blocking restrictions, as opposed to this situation, the definition does describe the "intent to pass the ball" as inclusive of both run and pass plays:

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

So if the QB recovers the botched snap and recovers sufficiently to try and hand the ball off and is tackled before he can do so, that seems to qualify as a sack.If the QB recovers the botched snap and, instead of intending to hand off or throw the ball, sufficiently recovers to the point where he starts to run laterally, and is tackled before he crosses the line of scrimmage, I would think that, too, would qualify as a sack.

Handing the ball off would hard to interpret as a pass play. Running laterally would depend on other factors. Is he pulling the ball up with intent to pass?

The NFL rulebook's definition of intent to pass the ball (quoted above) includes the act of handing off or pitching the ball to a back. I am assuming that the same definition of intent to pass would apply here, and as such, not be limited to just the motions of preapring to throw the ball downfield.

You are implying a definition here where none is being made. No where in the part you bolded does it say that those actions are equivalent to an attempt to pass.

Seriously? The bolded part includes the words "intent to pass" then parenthetically defines what an intent to pass means -- a definition that includes "hands off the ball."You seem to be thinking of a pass as a throw downfield; this definition of a pass from the rulebook includes both a throw and a "pass-off" to a back.

dansav, great example -- I would call that a sack, but clearly was not ruled that way. I would love clarity on whether there is actually a rule pertaining to this situation, or if referee judgement is simply used whenever there is a botched snap and the QB recovers to the point where he can still make a play (as opposed to just falling on the ball).

It also says demonstrates no further intent to pass. Amazing how far a little common sense and reading comprehension will go. Unless you really believe that handing the ball is an intent to pass. Personally I think handing the bal off demonstrates no further intent to pass but I may be in the minority here.

Easy there, friend. Given this definition:

Offensive player (i.e., QB, RB, WR, FB. tackle, guard, center)

one could assume that a center is part of a subset of players that make up what an offensive player is.

Given this definition:

Demonstration of intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled)

one would similarly assume that handing off/pitching the ball is a subset of actions making up what the demonstration of intent to pass is.

Again, I think you are narrowly defining the word "pass" as just a throw, whereas as there is a very definite and succinct example (the first one given, actually) of a handoff to another back constituting one of several actions that "demonstrating the intent to pass" consists of.

Sure, this definition is in the context of restrictions placed on defensive players and illegal contact, but the context does not modify the definition iteslf.

What you seem to be saying is that the proof simply lies in the phrase "demonstrating the intent to pass" while not taking into account the explicit examples that the rulebook provides as to what demonstration of intent entails.

Whatever, this point has gone on ad nauseum, happy to leave the semantics where they lie.

I get that if the QB recovers a botched snap and is tackled while intending to throw the ball, it's a sack (this was The Jerk's very good explanation).

I get that if the QB recovers the ball and starts to run with it, and is tackled behind scrimmage it's a tackle for a loss -- the QB has effectively turned into an RB at that point.

What I don't get is that, after a botched snap, and after the QB recovers the ball, if the QB is subsequently tackled while trying to hand off the ball, that is a tackle for loss and not a sack. The QB is still acting as a QB.

If someone like Troy Polumalu penetrates the line immediately and tackles the QB before he is able to hand the ball off, that is a sack, correct?

So why isn't it a sack in the case where a botched snap is part of the equation? The botched snap does not affect the designation of a sack in a throwing play, why would it with a running play?

The real root might simply be that sacks are not technically defined as part of the rulebook. The NFL Rulebook mentions the term "sack" just once -- in relation to unsportsmanlike conduct for "sack dances."

The term "sack" is venacular that Deacon Jones may have contributed to the game before sacks were recorded measures of performance, so the simple answer to my seemingly complex question may just be that it's not the officials who designate sacks, but the stats bureaus, based on unclear or undefined criteria.

 

[Short Corner]

If someone like Troy Polumalu penetrates the line immediately and tackles the QB before he is able to hand the ball off, that is a sack, correct?

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

If someone like Troy Polumalu penetrates the line immediately and tackles the QB before he is able to hand the ball off, that is a sack, correct?

OK, definitely fine with conceding the point if that's my misconception -- any run play (whether botched snap or not) where the QB is tackled is not a sack. I still wonder what the definitive source for determining what a sack is. Even if there are objective rules about what a sack consists of, and what it isn't, where are those rules outlined?

 

[belljr]

A sack is given by the official scorer if the play in question appears to be a pass play.

Botched snaps that don't ever result in a play but only a mad scramble for the ball do not qualify.

Another play that can result in the QB being tackled behind the line of scrimmage and not be given a sack is a botched handoff, where the RB goes one way and the QB the other.

In either case, whether a botched snap or botched handoff, if the QB sufficiently recovers and appears as if he is trying to find a receiver downfield and is then tackled, a sack will most likely be credited to the tackler.

In the end, it is the opinion of the official scorer that matters, but that opinion is informed by the impression that a play was a passing play or a rushing play. Given the fact that in at least two of those botched snaps, there was essentially no play at all, it is impossible to declare those plays as passing plays. Therefore, no sack is given.

Really good explanation! Seems like there is some lattitude for officials to designate whether a tackle qualifies as a sack or not.My thinking is that the key is the sufficient recovery to a point where the QB intends to advance the play of the ball by either handing off or throwing the ball (as opposed to just the intent to find a receiver and throw downfield, as you and others have mentioned).

After a botched snap (or handoff), if the QB has recovered the ball and is still behind the line of scrimmage, and has recoverd sufficiently to the point where he could still either throw a pass or hand off to a runner, but is tackled before he can do either, that seems to qualify as a sack.

I looked through the 2010 rulebook, and while I couldn't find anything specific after an admittedly brief search, I did find the following definition of intent to pass. While relating to defensive blocking restrictions, as opposed to this situation, the definition does describe the "intent to pass the ball" as inclusive of both run and pass plays:

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled, the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

So if the QB recovers the botched snap and recovers sufficiently to try and hand the ball off and is tackled before he can do so, that seems to qualify as a sack.If the QB recovers the botched snap and, instead of intending to hand off or throw the ball, sufficiently recovers to the point where he starts to run laterally, and is tackled before he crosses the line of scrimmage, I would think that, too, would qualify as a sack.

Handing the ball off would hard to interpret as a pass play. Running laterally would depend on other factors. Is he pulling the ball up with intent to pass?

The NFL rulebook's definition of intent to pass the ball (quoted above) includes the act of handing off or pitching the ball to a back. I am assuming that the same definition of intent to pass would apply here, and as such, not be limited to just the motions of preapring to throw the ball downfield.

You are implying a definition here where none is being made. No where in the part you bolded does it say that those actions are equivalent to an attempt to pass.

Seriously? The bolded part includes the words "intent to pass" then parenthetically defines what an intent to pass means -- a definition that includes "hands off the ball."You seem to be thinking of a pass as a throw downfield; this definition of a pass from the rulebook includes both a throw and a "pass-off" to a back.

dansav, great example -- I would call that a sack, but clearly was not ruled that way. I would love clarity on whether there is actually a rule pertaining to this situation, or if referee judgement is simply used whenever there is a botched snap and the QB recovers to the point where he can still make a play (as opposed to just falling on the ball).

It also says demonstrates no further intent to pass. Amazing how far a little common sense and reading comprehension will go. Unless you really believe that handing the ball is an intent to pass. Personally I think handing the bal off demonstrates no further intent to pass but I may be in the minority here.

Easy there, friend. Given this definition:

Offensive player (i.e., QB, RB, WR, FB. tackle, guard, center)

one could assume that a center is part of a subset of players that make up what an offensive player is.

Given this definition:

Demonstration of intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another back, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled)

one would similarly assume that handing off/pitching the ball is a subset of actions making up what the demonstration of intent to pass is.

Again, I think you are narrowly defining the word "pass" as just a throw, whereas as there is a very definite and succinct example (the first one given, actually) of a handoff to another back constituting one of several actions that "demonstrating the intent to pass" consists of.

Sure, this definition is in the context of restrictions placed on defensive players and illegal contact, but the context does not modify the definition iteslf.

What you seem to be saying is that the proof simply lies in the phrase "demonstrating the intent to pass" while not taking into account the explicit examples that the rulebook provides as to what demonstration of intent entails.

I don't know how to say this but i.e. does not mean what you think it means. First off it reads demonstrates no further intention to pass NOT Demonstration of intention to pass the ball.Again these are not examples but for lack of a better word we will say examples. These are EXAMPLES of a player who WILL NO LONGER HAVE THE INTENTION OF THROWING A PASS. So when he HANDS-OFF - HE NO LONGER HAS AN INTENTION TO PASS. They are not examples of types of pass plays.

I think I just been

 

[DangerMonkey]

I actually think I lost 20 IQ points reading this thread.

Obviously (as some have pointed out) handing the ball off indicates a lack of further intent to pass.

Forget about arm motions and the QB looking downfield, one of the key factors in determining whether a play is a running or passing play is the action of the O-Line. If you see O-Linemen driving into the D-Line and possibly moving downfield after the snap, it's a running play. If they simply hold their ground or attempt to form a pocket for the QB, it will be scored as a passing play.

 

[smashingsilver]

I actually think I lost 20 IQ points reading this thread.Obviously (as some have pointed out) handing the ball off indicates a lack of further intent to pass.Forget about arm motions and the QB looking downfield, one of the key factors in determining whether a play is a running or passing play is the action of the O-Line. If you see O-Linemen driving into the D-Line and possibly moving downfield after the snap, it's a running play. If they simply hold their ground or attempt to form a pocket for the QB, it will be scored as a passing play.

This actually isn't true, either. On a draw play, the O-line acts like it's a pass play, allowing the DL to rush up the field. If you simply looked at the O-line and nothing else, you would think it was a pass play, when in reality it is a run.Getting back to the primary point, a sack, for statistical purposes, is entirely up to the judgment of the official scorers. It is based, as previously stated by others in this thread, entirely upon whether the QB appears to have the intention to throw. This appearance can change several times during one play.Example: QB takes snap directly behind center, and turns to make a handoff (QB does not appear to have the intention to throw). If at this point he gets tackled, it will not be a sack. However, if the QB only fakes the handoff (play-action pass), and turns around with ball held in a throwing position, he now does appear to have the intention to throw. Then, if he does not find a receiver to throw to, and then tucks the ball and begins running laterally, he is viewed as no longer having the intention to throw. Finally, before he crosses the line of scrimmage, the QB may decide to again hold the ball in a throwing position. If he does so, and gets tackled at this point, it is generally ruled a sack.The above play started as a running play, then changed to a passing play, then became a run, and finally ended up as a passing play again. The trick is that all of this is up to the judgment of the scorers. However, a scorer can not determine what the true intention of a play is, only what appears to be happening at the time. If a designed pass play never actually gets to the stage where the QB is holding the ball and is showing the intention to throw, then the play is not ruled as a passing play. This is what happened in the Dal-Wsh game. Romo never got to the point where he was holding the ball and showing the intention to throw. Because of this, it is simply a tackle for loss, and not a sack.

 

[Short Corner]

I actually think I lost 20 IQ points reading this thread.Obviously (as some have pointed out) handing the ball off indicates a lack of further intent to pass.Forget about arm motions and the QB looking downfield, one of the key factors in determining whether a play is a running or passing play is the action of the O-Line. If you see O-Linemen driving into the D-Line and possibly moving downfield after the snap, it's a running play. If they simply hold their ground or attempt to form a pocket for the QB, it will be scored as a passing play.

This actually isn't true, either. On a draw play, the O-line acts like it's a pass play, allowing the DL to rush up the field. If you simply looked at the O-line and nothing else, you would think it was a pass play, when in reality it is a run.Getting back to the primary point, a sack, for statistical purposes, is entirely up to the judgment of the official scorers. It is based, as previously stated by others in this thread, entirely upon whether the QB appears to have the intention to throw. This appearance can change several times during one play.Example: QB takes snap directly behind center, and turns to make a handoff (QB does not appear to have the intention to throw). If at this point he gets tackled, it will not be a sack. However, if the QB only fakes the handoff (play-action pass), and turns around with ball held in a throwing position, he now does appear to have the intention to throw. Then, if he does not find a receiver to throw to, and then tucks the ball and begins running laterally, he is viewed as no longer having the intention to throw. Finally, before he crosses the line of scrimmage, the QB may decide to again hold the ball in a throwing position. If he does so, and gets tackled at this point, it is generally ruled a sack.The above play started as a running play, then changed to a passing play, then became a run, and finally ended up as a passing play again. The trick is that all of this is up to the judgment of the scorers. However, a scorer can not determine what the true intention of a play is, only what appears to be happening at the time. If a designed pass play never actually gets to the stage where the QB is holding the ball and is showing the intention to throw, then the play is not ruled as a passing play. This is what happened in the Dal-Wsh game. Romo never got to the point where he was holding the ball and showing the intention to throw. Because of this, it is simply a tackle for loss, and not a sack.

Pretty sure that once he makes that primary intent to pass it is considered a pass play and the tackle of the QB behind the LOS is considered a sack.

 

[The Jerk]

I actually think I lost 20 IQ points reading this thread.Obviously (as some have pointed out) handing the ball off indicates a lack of further intent to pass.Forget about arm motions and the QB looking downfield, one of the key factors in determining whether a play is a running or passing play is the action of the O-Line. If you see O-Linemen driving into the D-Line and possibly moving downfield after the snap, it's a running play. If they simply hold their ground or attempt to form a pocket for the QB, it will be scored as a passing play.

This actually isn't true, either. On a draw play, the O-line acts like it's a pass play, allowing the DL to rush up the field. If you simply looked at the O-line and nothing else, you would think it was a pass play, when in reality it is a run.Getting back to the primary point, a sack, for statistical purposes, is entirely up to the judgment of the official scorers. It is based, as previously stated by others in this thread, entirely upon whether the QB appears to have the intention to throw. This appearance can change several times during one play.Example: QB takes snap directly behind center, and turns to make a handoff (QB does not appear to have the intention to throw). If at this point he gets tackled, it will not be a sack. However, if the QB only fakes the handoff (play-action pass), and turns around with ball held in a throwing position, he now does appear to have the intention to throw. Then, if he does not find a receiver to throw to, and then tucks the ball and begins running laterally, he is viewed as no longer having the intention to throw. Finally, before he crosses the line of scrimmage, the QB may decide to again hold the ball in a throwing position. If he does so, and gets tackled at this point, it is generally ruled a sack.The above play started as a running play, then changed to a passing play, then became a run, and finally ended up as a passing play again. The trick is that all of this is up to the judgment of the scorers. However, a scorer can not determine what the true intention of a play is, only what appears to be happening at the time. If a designed pass play never actually gets to the stage where the QB is holding the ball and is showing the intention to throw, then the play is not ruled as a passing play. This is what happened in the Dal-Wsh game. Romo never got to the point where he was holding the ball and showing the intention to throw. Because of this, it is simply a tackle for loss, and not a sack.

Pretty sure that once he makes that primary intent to pass it is considered a pass play and the tackle of the QB behind the LOS is considered a sack.

Once the QB has shown his intent to pass (according to the official scorer -- but certainly that would be the case in a play-action pass, as the example above depicted), he must pass the line of scrimmage in order for the play to be scored as NOT a sack. A sack will be scored if a QB scrambles back to, but not past, the line of scrimmage. You can find these in play-by-play accounts as QB ___ sacked for 0 yards. However, if the QB makes it past the line of scrimmage, it is now classified as a run for x yards.

 

[Tango]

Bumping this:

This is a play with Championship implications in my league. On the third to last play of the game ATL snapped the ball and it was fumbled and resulted in a loss of 16 yards. The NFL is currently reporting it as a "no gain". If they counted it as a loss of 16, ATL would then slip under 300 yards which would generate points for the team that started Carolina.

Since they credit the fumble to the center all the lost yards were not lost running or passing yards, but lost return yardage, correct? So it will stay as no-gain, correct? Not a loss of 16?

BUT, after looking closely at the log from the NFL below. this is messed up. The 2nd and 26 did not occur at the ATL 27 if the 1st and 10 occurred at the ATL 27...the 2nd down occurred 16 yards behind the 1st and 10 location.

Hmmm.....

2-26-ATL 27 09) PENALTY on ATL, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at ATL 27 - No Play. Illegal Shift inside final minute by rule becomes False Start with :10 runoff.

1-10-ATL 27 31) (Shotgun) M.Ryan Aborted. J.Hawley FUMBLES at ATL 27, recovered by ATL-J.Snelling at ATL 27. J.Snelling to ATL 27 for no gain (M.White).

 

[Tango]

Bumping this:

The NFL is currently reporting it as a "no gain".

Meanwhile, the NFL also thinks Tony Romo is playing tonight...

2-8-DAL 46 (13:00) (Shotgun) T.Romo pass short right to D.Bryant to PHI 48 for 6 yards (B.Fletcher). Pass complete on an up and out pattern.

 

[SengerCJ]

Who would get credit for the sack? Why would you assume that when no contact is made with the QB?

So when Favre laid down for Strahan...oh wait, nevermind

ouch