Help settle an argument (1 Viewer)

[Snotbubbles]

And yes, it is possible to have a tackle and have the other team score. It's possible to have any outcome you can imagine and have the other team score because a TD can be awarded by penalty.

How can you have a tackle and a TD? As soon as the ball breaks the plain of the goal the play is over. If your knee is down before that then there is no TD. So you're either tackled before the ball breaks the plain, or you are not.

See this is why I had stopped posting. But since you call me out by name... now you're claiming that forcing a fumble should be viewed as a bad thing? I can't see anyone who knows anything about the game of football claiming this, which leaves me still with the conclusion this is just arguing to argue.

Please direct me where I said causing a forced fumble is a bad thing? A tackle is the definitive end to a play, a sack isn't. I can't see anyone who knows anything about the game of football claiming that when a defensive player gets a sack and the other team scores that this is a good thing? In fact, a sack is simply a judgment call by the official scorer that the play in question should be deemed a "sack."

 

[GregR_2]

And yes, it is possible to have a tackle and have the other team score. It's possible to have any outcome you can imagine and have the other team score because a TD can be awarded by penalty.

How can you have a tackle and a TD? As soon as the ball breaks the plain of the goal the play is over. If your knee is down before that then there is no TD. So you're either tackled before the ball breaks the plain, or you are not.

Peyton throws a WR screen to Harrison. Stokely, Wayne, and Clark get in front of Harrison, with only safety Roy Williams between Harrison and the end zone and needing to be blocked. Suddenly TO, Terry Glenn, and Julius Jones run off the sidelines and tackle the three Colts blockers, allowing Roy Williams to make the tackle on Marvin Harrison.Result of the play, ref awards a TD to the Colts. No clue on how it is scored statwise, whether Williams gets credit for the tackle, Harrison for the TD, or for full yardage to the endzone, or just to where he was tackled. But that's an example of how there can be a tackle and a TD awarded on a play.

 

[videoguy505]

And yes, it is possible to have a tackle and have the other team score. It's possible to have any outcome you can imagine and have the other team score because a TD can be awarded by penalty.

How can you have a tackle and a TD? As soon as the ball breaks the plain of the goal the play is over. If your knee is down before that then there is no TD. So you're either tackled before the ball breaks the plain, or you are not.

Peyton throws a WR screen to Harrison. Stokely, Wayne, and Clark get in front of Harrison, with only safety Roy Williams between Harrison and the end zone and needing to be blocked. Suddenly TO, Terry Glenn, and Julius Jones run off the sidelines and tackle the three Colts blockers, allowing Roy Williams to make the tackle on Marvin Harrison.Result of the play, ref awards a TD to the Colts. No clue on how it is scored statwise, whether Williams gets credit for the tackle, Harrison for the TD, or for full yardage to the endzone, or just to where he was tackled. But that's an example of how there can be a tackle and a TD awarded on a play.

Before anyone suggests this is crazy, yes, this has happened. I know it definitely happened in at least 1 college game, and there's a whole bunch of crazy plays from before The Merger that I wouldn't put it past the early NFL, either.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Peyton throws a WR screen to Harrison. Stokely, Wayne, and Clark get in front of Harrison, with only safety Roy Williams between Harrison and the end zone and needing to be blocked. Suddenly TO, Terry Glenn, and Julius Jones run off the sidelines and tackle the three Colts blockers, allowing Roy Williams to make the tackle on Marvin Harrison.Result of the play, ref awards a TD to the Colts. No clue on how it is scored statwise, whether Williams gets credit for the tackle, Harrison for the TD, or for full yardage to the endzone, or just to where he was tackled. But that's an example of how there can be a tackle and a TD awarded on a play.

A Touchdown Awarded (Palpably Unfair Act) 1. When Referee determines a palpably unfair act deprived a team of a touchdown. (Example: Player comes off bench and tackles runner apparently en route to touchdown.) First, in this situation the referee would not be able to determine if the act deprived a team of a touchdown because the player was tackled by an eligble player. Had the player been tackled by an ineligible player then the referee could determine that the team was deprived of a TD. But in this instance, because an eligible player still had an opportunity at a tackle, the unfair act did not deprive the team of a touchdown, therefore this penalty would not come into play.Second, because in the modern era a penalty of this type has not happened, there is no proof that even if as in your hypo the referee awarded a TD, that the eligible tackler would receive credit for the tackle.

 

[GregR_2]

Before anyone suggests this is crazy, yes, this has happened. I know it definitely happened in at least 1 college game, and there's a whole bunch of crazy plays from before The Merger that I wouldn't put it past the early NFL, either.

I was thinking this happened in an old Giants game, but couldn't find it on the web. Did come across something that said Cowher stepped on the field during a 97 game against the Jags and made as if to hit a player heading towards the end zone, but he held back. When asked later he indicated he considered tackling him but held back.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I was thinking this happened in an old Giants game, but couldn't find it on the web. Did come across something that said Cowher stepped on the field during a 97 game against the Jags and made as if to hit a player heading towards the end zone, but he held back. When asked later he indicated he considered tackling him but held back.

The Cowher situation was on a blocked field goal and no eligible player made an attempt to tackle the ball carrier. If Cowher had tackled the player he could have been awarded a TD per the NFL rulebook. It's irrelevant though as that is not the same situation as your hypo.

 

[SSOG]

Peyton throws a WR screen to Harrison. Stokely, Wayne, and Clark get in front of Harrison, with only safety Roy Williams between Harrison and the end zone and needing to be blocked. Suddenly TO, Terry Glenn, and Julius Jones run off the sidelines and tackle the three Colts blockers, allowing Roy Williams to make the tackle on Marvin Harrison.

Result of the play, ref awards a TD to the Colts. No clue on how it is scored statwise, whether Williams gets credit for the tackle, Harrison for the TD, or for full yardage to the endzone, or just to where he was tackled. But that's an example of how there can be a tackle and a TD awarded on a play.

A Touchdown Awarded (Palpably Unfair Act) 1. When Referee determines a palpably unfair act deprived a team of a touchdown. (Example: Player comes off bench and tackles runner apparently en route to touchdown.)

First, in this situation the referee would not be able to determine if the act deprived a team of a touchdown because the player was tackled by an eligble player. Had the player been tackled by an ineligible player then the referee could determine that the team was deprived of a TD. But in this instance, because an eligible player still had an opportunity at a tackle, the unfair act did not deprive the team of a touchdown, therefore this penalty would not come into play.

Second, because in the modern era a penalty of this type has not happened, there is no proof that even if as in your hypo the referee awarded a TD, that the eligible tackler would receive credit for the tackle.

Well, okay, what happens if someone comes off the bench and tackles the ballcarrier? How can we be sure that that act deprived the team of the TD? I mean, he might have still been chased down Champ Bailey/Ben Watson style. Or he might have tripped over his dog in his driveway and broken his foot on the way to the end zone. So how could you say that it deprived the team of the TD when you don't know for sure?If you can't award a TD for the first situation, then you can't award a TD for the second, either.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Well, okay, what happens if someone comes off the bench and tackles the ballcarrier? How can we be sure that that act deprived the team of the TD? I mean, he might have still been chased down Champ Bailey/Ben Watson style. Or he might have tripped over his dog in his driveway and broken his foot on the way to the end zone. So how could you say that it deprived the team of the TD when you don't know for sure?If you can't award a TD for the first situation, then you can't award a TD for the second, either.

Easy, in your situation, the ball carrier was stopped by an INELIGIBLE player. In GregR's situation the ball carrier was stopped by an ELIGIBLE player.

 

[SSOG]

Well, okay, what happens if someone comes off the bench and tackles the ballcarrier? How can we be sure that that act deprived the team of the TD? I mean, he might have still been chased down Champ Bailey/Ben Watson style. Or he might have tripped over his dog in his driveway and broken his foot on the way to the end zone. So how could you say that it deprived the team of the TD when you don't know for sure?

If you can't award a TD for the first situation, then you can't award a TD for the second, either.

Easy, in your situation, the ball carrier was stopped by an INELIGIBLE player. In GregR's situation the ball carrier was stopped by an ELIGIBLE player.

In both situations, an INELIGIBLE PLAYER drastically impacted the outcome of the play.What would happen if someone broke free with a clear path to the end zone and no one within 20 yards of him, and then 50 ineligible players stepped on the field and stood shoulder-to-shoulder, and as the player with the ball slowed down trying to figure out how to get past them, someone caught up and tackled him from behind. Would that not be a blatantly unfair act that cost the team a touchdown? Because in that situation, no ineligible player even laid a hand on the ballcarrier. So obviously, according to your criteria, a touchdown shouldn't be awarded there, because no ineligible player even touched the ballcarrier.

 

[Snotbubbles]

In both situations, an INELIGIBLE PLAYER drastically impacted the outcome of the play.What would happen if someone broke free with a clear path to the end zone and no one within 20 yards of him, and then 50 ineligible players stepped on the field and stood shoulder-to-shoulder, and as the player with the ball slowed down trying to figure out how to get past them, someone caught up and tackled him from behind. Would that not be a blatantly unfair act that cost the team a touchdown? Because in that situation, no ineligible player even laid a hand on the ballcarrier. So obviously, according to your criteria, a touchdown shouldn't be awarded there, because no ineligible player even touched the ballcarrier.

How do you define deprive? That's really what its about. A clear path to the goal, if impeded would be deprived. An ineligible player making a tackle would be deprived. An ineligble player not impeding the running who gets tackled by an eligible player is not deprive.In any event, the semantics are irrelevant. The true question isn't whether the team would be awarded a TD by penalty. The question is would the tackler be awarded a tackle (either eligible or ineligible) when a TD is awarded by penalty? That's what's relevant. If the tackler would not be awarded a tackle for either situation, then whether the referee awarded a TD is not relevant because a tackle could not result in a TD.

 

[SSOG]

How do you define deprive? That's really what its about. A clear path to the goal, if impeded would be deprived. An ineligible player making a tackle would be deprived. An ineligble player not impeding the running who gets tackled by an eligible player is not deprive.

It is if he removes all of the blockers from the way. Clearing out blockers is the same thing as impeding progress, because all of a sudden there are uncovered tacklers you are exposed to. It sounds to me like you're trying to define "deprive" in the most convoluted and nonsensical manner as possible just so that it fits your scenario but not mine.

In any event, the semantics are irrelevant. The true question isn't whether the team would be awarded a TD by penalty. The question is would the tackler be awarded a tackle (either eligible or ineligible) when a TD is awarded by penalty? That's what's relevant.

So, in other words, the semantics we were discussing of an obscure rule are irrelevant, and instead we should be discussing some other set of semantics of an obscure rule?If the NFL invented a rule that on any day where the NFL commissioner's third wife's second cousin twice removed marries a woman named "Megan", all tackles will be scored as TDs as well, would that really change the value of tackles relevant to sacks?You guys are arguing semantics. The value of a tackle or a sack in an obscure one-in-a-million instance doesn't tell you which is more valuable. To get an idea of which is a valuable, average the individual value of ALL tackles and the individual value of ALL sacks and see which is greater. And I guarantee you the average value of sacks will be greater than the average value of tackles. End of story.That'd be like saying "Which is more valuable, a 98 yard pass or a 1 yard run?". Sure, you could argue semantics and say that in certain situations the 1-yard run will be more valuable than the 98 yard pass, but when you get down to it, I'd rather my team have 5 98-yard passes in a game than 5 1-yard runs. And so would you.

 

[GregR_2]

SSOG, you're seeing why I gave up discussing it. I just posted the answer to "how do you score a TD when a tackle took place" because the answer is itself such an interesting NFL rule.

 

[videoguy505]

Before anyone suggests this is crazy, yes, this has happened.  I know it definitely happened in at least 1 college game, and there's a whole bunch of crazy plays from before The Merger that I wouldn't put it past the early NFL, either.

I was thinking this happened in an old Giants game, but couldn't find it on the web. Did come across something that said Cowher stepped on the field during a 97 game against the Jags and made as if to hit a player heading towards the end zone, but he held back. When asked later he indicated he considered tackling him but held back.

There was also that college game from a year or two ago where one team rushed the field in celebration, not seeing that the QB had lateraled. The runner with the ball had cut up the sideline but couldn't make it through, by the time he changed direction he was tackled by a player. The refs took a lot of heat for not awarding a TD that time.Edit: The Alamo Bowl, 2005, Nebraska v. Michigan. My original reference was to the 1954 Cotton Bowl when a player ran off the bench and tackled a player on the field, resulting in an award for a 95 yard TD run. And the runner in the '54 game was credited with the yardage in the official stats.

 

[SSOG]

Before anyone suggests this is crazy, yes, this has happened. I know it definitely happened in at least 1 college game, and there's a whole bunch of crazy plays from before The Merger that I wouldn't put it past the early NFL, either.

I was thinking this happened in an old Giants game, but couldn't find it on the web. Did come across something that said Cowher stepped on the field during a 97 game against the Jags and made as if to hit a player heading towards the end zone, but he held back. When asked later he indicated he considered tackling him but held back.

There was also that college game from a year or two ago where one team rushed the field in celebration, not seeing that the QB had lateraled. The runner with the ball had cut up the sideline but couldn't make it through, by the time he changed direction he was tackled by a player. The refs took a lot of heat for not awarding a TD that time.Edit: The Alamo Bowl, 2005, Nebraska v. Michigan. My original reference was to the 1954 Cotton Bowl when a player ran off the bench and tackled a player on the field, resulting in an award for a 95 yard TD run. And the runner in the '54 game was credited with the yardage in the official stats.

They didn't take the heat for not awarding a TD, because Michigan players walked onto the field too (although not nearly as many). There's a rule that says if there's any unforseen situation, the Ref is allowed to use his discretion and make up any penalty he deems is fair. I think most people just thought that the Ref should have spotted the ball at the place where the guy was tackled and given Michigan one last untimed play.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The question still remains, not whether such a instance "could" happen, but whether a player would be awarded a tackle on the play. In the example you gave it in no way indicated that the player coming off the bench was awarded a tackle.

I believe on a defensive penalty, the defense would not be awarded a tackle. (I will provide reasons why later...I'm at work). Thus we come back to my original supposition: A sack can end in a TD, but a tackle can't. Therefore, a tackle is more important (regardless of the yardage allowed) than a sack.

 

[GregR_2]

Before anyone suggests this is crazy, yes, this has happened. I know it definitely happened in at least 1 college game, and there's a whole bunch of crazy plays from before The Merger that I wouldn't put it past the early NFL, either.

I was thinking this happened in an old Giants game, but couldn't find it on the web. Did come across something that said Cowher stepped on the field during a 97 game against the Jags and made as if to hit a player heading towards the end zone, but he held back. When asked later he indicated he considered tackling him but held back.

There was also that college game from a year or two ago where one team rushed the field in celebration, not seeing that the QB had lateraled. The runner with the ball had cut up the sideline but couldn't make it through, by the time he changed direction he was tackled by a player. The refs took a lot of heat for not awarding a TD that time.Edit: The Alamo Bowl, 2005, Nebraska v. Michigan. My original reference was to the 1954 Cotton Bowl when a player ran off the bench and tackled a player on the field, resulting in an award for a 95 yard TD run. And the runner in the '54 game was credited with the yardage in the official stats.

They didn't take the heat for not awarding a TD, because Michigan players walked onto the field too (although not nearly as many). There's a rule that says if there's any unforseen situation, the Ref is allowed to use his discretion and make up any penalty he deems is fair. I think most people just thought that the Ref should have spotted the ball at the place where the guy was tackled and given Michigan one last untimed play.

I know I saw the video of the play but now I can't recall the details. Did the players who come on the field actually interfere with the course of play? I guess I didn't remember that as being the case. If not, it's offsetting penalties for too many men on the field and the game is over. If the kicking team's players who came on the field played any role in the actual play, including causing the runner to have to divert a different direction, then I'd agree the ref should have done something.Though, I'm not sure what takes precedence in a situation like that. There would be 3 penalties, 2 penalties for too-many-men and 1 for the palpably unfair act. That's one thing I've never been clear on in either the NFL or college, what kind of precedence different penalties have, when they offset, etc. Does the palpably unfair act take precedence over the too-many-men (with the other too-many-men being declined to take the palpably unfair act one)? Or do those offset as well?

 

[SSOG]

The question still remains, not whether such a instance "could" happen, but whether a player would be awarded a tackle on the play. In the example you gave it in no way indicated that the player coming off the bench was awarded a tackle.

I believe on a defensive penalty, the defense would not be awarded a tackle. (I will provide reasons why later...I'm at work). Thus we come back to my original supposition: A sack can end in a TD, but a tackle can't. Therefore, a tackle is more important (regardless of the yardage allowed) than a sack.

Oh, I see.So if the league passed a rule where if the commissioner's third cousin married a woman named Megan, then on the following sunday all tackles would result in TDs awarded to the player tackled, then suddenly sacks and tackles would both be equally important again, because they can both end in a TD?

What if the league offered a clarification that in GregR's original hypothetical situation, a tackle would actually be awarded? Would that make tackles and sacks equally valuable again?

Also, do you realize that you're arguing that sacks are LESS VALUABLE than tackles because they can result in a forced fumble? Since when does forcing a fumble reduce the value of the play?

Oh, one more point (cause I'm on a roll here)- a sack can result in a defensive TD, and a tackle can't. Does this mean that a sack is suddenly more valuable again? Or does the fact that it can result in a defensive TD cancel out the fact that it can result in an offensive TD and suddenly make the two equally valuable?

Do you even realize how indefensible your position is?

I know I saw the video of the play but now I can't recall the details. Did the players who come on the field actually interfere with the course of play? I guess I didn't remember that as being the case. If not, it's offsetting penalties for too many men on the field and the game is over. If the kicking team's players who came on the field played any role in the actual play, including causing the runner to have to divert a different direction, then I'd agree the ref should have done something.

Though, I'm not sure what takes precedence in a situation like that. There would be 3 penalties, 2 penalties for too-many-men and 1 for the palpably unfair act. That's one thing I've never been clear on in either the NFL or college, what kind of precedence different penalties have, when they offset, etc. Does the palpably unfair act take precedence over the too-many-men (with the other too-many-men being declined to take the palpably unfair act one)? Or do those offset as well?

Basically, before the play was over, something like 30+ Nebraska players/coaches and 4 or 5 Michigan players/coaches stepped onto the field. The ballcarrier ran into a massive wall of Nebraska players and had no way to get by them, and was tackled as a result. It definitely impacted the play in a huge way. The Michigan players didn't really impact the play, but they did actually step on the field.What should have happened is offsetting penalties should have been declared. Of course, since the game cannot end on a play that resulted in a defensive penalty (offset or not), that wouldn't have ended the game- that would have given the offense one last untimed play. Again, I would have either done that, or used my discretion and called this an "unforseen circumstance", then given Michigan the ball at the point of the tackle and given one last untimed play.

 

[GregR_2]

What should have happened is offsetting penalties should have been declared. Of course, since the game cannot end on a play that resulted in a defensive penalty (offset or not), that wouldn't have ended the game- that would have given the offense one last untimed play. Again, I would have either done that, or used my discretion and called this an "unforseen circumstance", then given Michigan the ball at the point of the tackle and given one last untimed play.

I could be wrong, but I don't think offsetting penalties qualifies for the "game can't end on a defensive penalty" rule. There is no penalty for the offense to accept since they offset. Where's MT and that rulebook when we need him (though of course he has the NFL and now we've drifted into NCAA.Edit to add, from http://www.fanblogs.com/michigan/006315.php

A day after a wild, lateral-filled ending to the Alamo Bowl, David Parry, the N.C.A.A.'s national coordinator for officiating, said that the officials should have thrown flags because Michigan and Nebraska had too many players on the field as the final play unfolded.

Nevertheless, Parry said, the mistake did not affect the outcome of the game, because the penalties by each team would have offset each other, and because time had expired. Parry said that the officials should have explained to each team why the game had ended so abruptly.