here's a scoring question for you. (1 Viewer)

[Bossman]

Color me confused.

I hear the term "triple play" or "trifecta" when a defender sacks, forces a fumble and recovers for a score.

Why is it that a defender gets credit for a "sack" when he forces a fumble by the QB?

I always thought the definition of a sack was a tackle of the QB benind the line of scrimmage while attempting to complete a pass.

Technically he didn't tackle the QB and the QB was never "down". If he were, there couldn't be a fumble cus the play would be over.

With this type of reasoning, shouldn't a DB be given a "pass defended" in the event of an interception?

 

[Jene Bramel]

Color me confused.

I hear the term "triple play" or "trifecta" when a defender sacks, forces a fumble and recovers for a score.

Why is it that a defender gets credit for a "sack" when he forces a fumble by the QB?

I always thought the definition of a sack was a tackle of the QB benind the line of scrimmage while attempting to complete a pass.

Technically he didn't tackle the QB and the QB was never "down". If he were, there couldn't be a fumble cus the play would be over.

With this type of reasoning, shouldn't a DB be given a "pass defended" in the event of an interception?

They are.

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

Color me confused.

I hear the term "triple play" or "trifecta" when a defender sacks, forces a fumble and recovers for a score.

Why is it that a defender gets credit for a "sack" when he forces a fumble by the QB?

I always thought the definition of a sack was a tackle of the QB benind the line of scrimmage while attempting to complete a pass.

Technically he didn't tackle the QB and the QB was never "down". If he were, there couldn't be a fumble cus the play would be over.

With this type of reasoning, shouldn't a DB be given a "pass defended" in the event of an interception?

They are.

 

[Bossman]

Color me confused.

I hear the term "triple play" or "trifecta" when a defender sacks, forces a fumble and recovers for a score.

Why is it that a defender gets credit for a "sack" when he forces a fumble by the QB?

I always thought the definition of a sack was a tackle of the QB benind the line of scrimmage while attempting to complete a pass.

Technically he didn't tackle the QB and the QB was never "down". If he were, there couldn't be a fumble cus the play would be over.

With this type of reasoning, shouldn't a DB be given a "pass defended" in the event of an interception?

They are.

I guess it's just not in Zealots then.

 

[Bossman]

Color me confused.

I hear the term "triple play" or "trifecta" when a defender sacks, forces a fumble and recovers for a score.

Why is it that a defender gets credit for a "sack" when he forces a fumble by the QB?

I always thought the definition of a sack was a tackle of the QB benind the line of scrimmage while attempting to complete a pass.

Technically he didn't tackle the QB and the QB was never "down". If he were, there couldn't be a fumble cus the play would be over.

With this type of reasoning, shouldn't a DB be given a "pass defended" in the event of an interception?

They are.

I'm oned... yet neither one of you can tell me how a forced fumble can also be a sack.Thanks for nothing.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Color me confused.

I hear the term "triple play" or "trifecta" when a defender sacks, forces a fumble and recovers for a score.

Why is it that a defender gets credit for a "sack" when he forces a fumble by the QB?

I always thought the definition of a sack was a tackle of the QB benind the line of scrimmage while attempting to complete a pass.

Technically he didn't tackle the QB and the QB was never "down". If he were, there couldn't be a fumble cus the play would be over.

With this type of reasoning, shouldn't a DB be given a "pass defended" in the event of an interception?

They are.

I'm oned... yet neither one of you can tell me how a forced fumble can also be a sack.Thanks for nothing.

My intention wasn't to own anyone; I was just answering the question. Sorry if it came off that way.I didn't address the first part because I think it's a philosophical issue that you either buy into or you don't. The stat makers apparently define a tackle convention as anything that stops the forward progress of a possessed ball. Similar situations occur when one player truly makes the tackle but another player assists and punches the ball free. The crews give both the solo tackle and FF to the player who had less physical contact in nearly all cases I've observed. The tomahawk sack and the punch from behind, neither of which bring down the "ballcarrier", are scored the same way -- as both a tackle (with sack where applicable) and a FF.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but the convention is one of those "it is what it is" deals. There's really no football oriented explanation for why they defined things that way.

 

[JOBOOZOSO]

funny sh!+

I think it's a good rule that players get credited with sack when forcing the QB to fumble. Just my opinion.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Forcing a fumble on the QB wasn't always a sack.

But the powers that be in the NFL changed the scoring method several years ago that if a defender goes after the ball instead of just the QB, and successfully forces the loss of possesion (for the QB not the team) that he would be credited with the same recognition as if he had gotten to the QB. In "real" terms the forced fumble is a better outcome (usually) but for the statistics recognition (including history, records and pay base qualifiers) it was not. Thus players may be inclined to do something contrary to helping their team as much as possible because of the lack of recognition earned for just forcing a fumble.

Then you have this neat event, that forcing the fumble on the QB who is passing, generates the defender both a tackle and a sack, and then another tackle is awarded to the player who brings down the recoverer of the fumble. Making it possible that 2 solo tackles are awarded in one play. At no other time does this happen. In the event of 15 fumbles, only the last take down would be recorded as a "tackle" except when the quarterback is in the act of passing.

 

[JoeSteeler]

Forcing a fumble on the QB wasn't always a sack.

But the powers that be in the NFL changed the scoring method several years ago that if a defender goes after the ball instead of just the QB, and successfully forces the loss of possesion (for the QB not the team) that he would be credited with the same recognition as if he had gotten to the QB. In "real" terms the forced fumble is a better outcome (usually) but for the statistics recognition (including history, records and pay base qualifiers) it was not. Thus players may be inclined to do something contrary to helping their team as much as possible because of the lack of recognition earned for just forcing a a fumble.

Then you have this neat event, that forcing the fumble on the QB who is passing, generates the defender both a atckle and a sack, and then another tackle is awarded to the player who brings down the recoverer of the fumble. Making it possible that 2 solo tackles are awarded in one play. At no other time does this happen. In the event of 15 fumbles, only the last take down would be recorded as a "tackle" except when the quarterback is in the act of passing.

Some good info here

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

Forcing a fumble on the QB wasn't always a sack.

But the powers that be in the NFL changed the scoring method several years ago that if a defender goes after the ball instead of just the QB, and successfully forces the loss of possesion (for the QB not the team) that he would be credited with the same recognition as if he had gotten to the QB. In "real" terms the forced fumble is a better outcome (usually) but for the statistics recognition (including history, records and pay base qualifiers) it was not. Thus players may be inclined to do something contrary to helping their team as much as possible because of the lack of recognition earned for just forcing a fumble.

Then you have this neat event, that forcing the fumble on the QB who is passing, generates the defender both a tackle and a sack, and then another tackle is awarded to the player who brings down the recoverer of the fumble. Making it possible that 2 solo tackles are awarded in one play. At no other time does this happen. In the event of 15 fumbles, only the last take down would be recorded as a "tackle" except when the quarterback is in the act of passing.

 

[Dirty Hairy]

I didn't address the first part because I think it's a philosophical issue that you either buy into or you don't. The stat makers apparently define a tackle convention as anything that stops the forward progress of a possessed ball. Similar situations occur when one player truly makes the tackle but another player assists and punches the ball free. The crews give both the solo tackle and FF to the player who had less physical contact in nearly all cases I've observed. The tomahawk sack and the punch from behind, neither of which bring down the "ballcarrier", are scored the same way -- as both a tackle (with sack where applicable) and a FF.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but the convention is one of those "it is what it is" deals. There's really no football oriented explanation for why they defined things that way.

Just curious, is a tackle credited to a defender when a WR runs out of bounds?

 

[Jene Bramel]

I didn't address the first part because I think it's a philosophical issue that you either buy into or you don't. The stat makers apparently define a tackle convention as anything that stops the forward progress of a possessed ball. Similar situations occur when one player truly makes the tackle but another player assists and punches the ball free. The crews give both the solo tackle and FF to the player who had less physical contact in nearly all cases I've observed. The tomahawk sack and the punch from behind, neither of which bring down the "ballcarrier", are scored the same way -- as both a tackle (with sack where applicable) and a FF.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but the convention is one of those "it is what it is" deals. There's really no football oriented explanation for why they defined things that way.

Just curious, is a tackle credited to a defender when a WR runs out of bounds?

It depends. If the ballcarrier runs out of bounds by choice even with a defender within arm's length, usually not. Sacks are almost always awarded regardless of intent to my recollection, though, and I've seen judgment calls on WR/RB situations.

 

[Bizkiteer]

Color me confused.

I hear the term "triple play" or "trifecta" when a defender sacks, forces a fumble and recovers for a score.

Why is it that a defender gets credit for a "sack" when he forces a fumble by the QB?

I always thought the definition of a sack was a tackle of the QB benind the line of scrimmage while attempting to complete a pass.

Technically he didn't tackle the QB and the QB was never "down". If he were, there couldn't be a fumble cus the play would be over.

With this type of reasoning, shouldn't a DB be given a "pass defended" in the event of an interception?

They are.

I'm oned... yet neither one of you can tell me how a forced fumble can also be a sack.Thanks for nothing.

More simply put, when he knocks the ball out (fumble)...he stop the QB. Just as a tackle would or in some case the QB is tackled and the ball is knocked out. Either way, the QB is stopped from doing what he wants or getting a gain.