Roughing the Passer (1 Viewer)

[Voice Of Reason]

On 2nd though, this is such a bad time for me to bring up this discussion that it isn't worth it. Mods please delete this thread.

I've been rallying against this for a while, and after the Saints-Vikes NFC title game gives great examples of why this rule should be changed.

The QB should not be a special player with his own rules. The two roughness penalties called on the Saints vs Fave, while probably legit under the rules, are terrible. In one, Fave hands the ball to Percy Harvin on an end around and he sprints to the opposite direction and Saints DE McCray nails Fave and gets flagged. This is terrible for two reasons, one Fave is racing towards a defender and gets smacked. He is acting as a blocker and those crashing into someone blocking is perfectly legal vs anyone else on the field. Secondly, the Vikings, like every other team in the NFL, have run play action fakes. Immediately after the fake, it is not obvious to the defender who has the ball, purpose of the fake, so penalizing someone for doing what he believes is a legal move seems ridiculous.

The same apply to the rule regarding to "driving the QB into the ground." Every other player can be driven into the ground and it is unclear to the defender, often because he is facing down and looking behind the QB, if the QB has the ball or not. The Vince Young - Mathias Kiwnuka (sp) play

He is falling down and dives at the QB. This type of tackle is allowed on any other player. It is unfortunate that guys get hurt this way, but it is simply part of playing the game. Perhaps this could call could be used it someone is clearly going for someone's knee by obviously choosing that option over others, but for a defender on the ground, that is typically the only way he can grab the QB. Put the responsibility on the QB to protect himself and niot step into crashing bodies when he throws. Otherwise, you this can of worms can justify incredibly ridiculous calls, like the one against the Ravens vs Tom Brady earlier this year where Brady may not have even been touched by the defender.I mention the Saints-Vikes game as a point of reference for these calls because almost everyone saw that game. I am not saying there were good or bad calls given the rules. I want to avoid discussion of the officiating in that game.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

My belief is that it was N.O.'s plan to rough Favre regardless of the consequences. They did so all day and recieved the benefit of doing so while paying very little in regard to penalties. This may not be the game to champion your cause. IMO.

BTW good game plan and one they may want to revist vs. Manning, though I'm sure the Colts are already scheming for this.

 

[Avery]

I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune if Brees got picked up, and driven into the ground and you were stuck pinning your hopes on Mark Brunell to lead the Saints to victory on the cusp of your first Superbowl ever.

Edit for a more general answer: Fact is, this is now an offensive league with many rules favoring the offensive players. (see rules for DBs vs. WRs). The league knows that the general viewing public likes high flying offensives like they like homeruns in baseball. Add to that, that there are not even 32 really good NFL quality QBs in the world, they will continue to protect the likes of Manning, Brady, Brees and Favre like their league depends on it... and it does.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

No I wouldn't

 

[Voice Of Reason]

I think the rules are bad both ways.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune if Brees got picked up, and driven into the ground and you were stuck pinning your hopes on Mark Brunell to lead the Saints to victory on the cusp of your first Superbowl ever.

Edit for a more general answer: Fact is, this is now an offensive league with many rules favoring the offensive players. (see rules for DBs vs. WRs). The league knows that the general viewing public likes high flying offensives like they like homeruns in baseball. Add to that, that there are not even 32 really good NFL quality QBs in the world, they will continue to protect the likes of Manning, Brady, Brees and Favre like their league depends on it... and it does.

I agree with you that the motivation for the rule is to favor offense and star players. I just think that it sucks, much like the NBA's unofficial star system of rules.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

My belief is that it was N.O.'s plan to rough Favre regardless of the consequences. They did so all day and recieved the benefit of doing so while paying very little in regard to penalties. This may not be the game to champion your cause. IMO.

BTW good game plan and one they may want to revist vs. Manning, though I'm sure the Colts are already scheming for this.

You are probably dead on with this. I really should take away my favorite team option for this.

 

[Avery]

I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune if Brees got picked up, and driven into the ground and you were stuck pinning your hopes on Mark Brunell to lead the Saints to victory on the cusp of your first Superbowl ever.

Edit for a more general answer: Fact is, this is now an offensive league with many rules favoring the offensive players. (see rules for DBs vs. WRs). The league knows that the general viewing public likes high flying offensives like they like homeruns in baseball. Add to that, that there are not even 32 really good NFL quality QBs in the world, they will continue to protect the likes of Manning, Brady, Brees and Favre like their league depends on it... and it does.

I agree with you that the motivation for the rule is to favor offense and star players. I just think that it sucks, much like the NBA's unofficial star system of rules.

Sure, I've seen some ticky-tacky calls on roughing the QB just as I've seen some (probably more) iffy calls on pass interference.I'm seriously not trying to be snarky here, but I don't quite get why you think it sucks so bad aside from your team was called for a number of penalties you don't like.

I think the touchy calls against DBs is a far worse issue for they are calls that aren't designed to protect anybody (unlike roughing the passer calls) but just to let WRs run free.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

I agree with you on the PI calls, they poorly called.

I think it sucks because they are bad calls that greatly effect the outcome of games. You are probably right, I've always hated the rules regarding it and having it happen against my team in such a big game increased the venom I have for the rule.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune if Brees got picked up, and driven into the ground and you were stuck pinning your hopes on Mark Brunell to lead the Saints to victory on the cusp of your first Superbowl ever.

Edit for a more general answer: Fact is, this is now an offensive league with many rules favoring the offensive players. (see rules for DBs vs. WRs). The league knows that the general viewing public likes high flying offensives like they like homeruns in baseball. Add to that, that there are not even 32 really good NFL quality QBs in the world, they will continue to protect the likes of Manning, Brady, Brees and Favre like their league depends on it... and it does.

This is the problem here: too much subjectivity in the rule.Favre was hit while throwing, he was hit at the waste, his upper back and shoulders were driven into the ground, but he was not pile driven. 15 yard penalty on the Saints was the result.

Same kind of play, very similar hit on Brees later was not a called penalty.

I saw no egregious behavior on the part of the Saints d-lineman, nor on the Vikes player.

A similar problem exists in "blows" to the head where some taps on a QB's helmet result in 15 yard penalties and some do not.

It defies the meaning of the word "rule" when - speaking of what are clear, not close or judgement calls, plays - one ref calls it one place in one game and in another place and another game a different ref does not.

 

[PewterFan]

It's all about money. Quarterbacks make the most and owners want to protect their investment. Can't blame 'em.

 

[Dragon1952]

The main problem is that the call is too subjective. We saw the one on the Saints where Favre did the play action fake. He was tackled just a split second after handing off. The defender has no way of knowing if Favre still has the ball, he doesn't go down on contact so the defender has to lift him up. Just a couple plays later he gets hit a good 2 seconds after getting rid of the ball with the defender looking right at him and it's not called. And I've seen that numerous times this year. A bam-bam play gets called , and then a blatant foul gets ignored.

 

[CalBear]

Actually, I think the Saints were hitting Favre late intentionally all game long; there could have been more penalties called, including on the play where they hurt his ankle. If you're out there head hunting, you'd better expect you're going to get some roughing calls.

 

[Disc Shark]

In yesterday's local paper Saints DE Will Smith admitted that the Saints intended to hit Favre as much as possible. He ackowledged that the penalties were the result of their aggresive effort to put a pounding on the 40-year old quarterback. In the end, the strategy worked. In the 4th quater Favre was limited because of the brutal abuse he received from the Saints' D. I am not sure any quarterback other than Favre would have been able to play the entire game.

 

[Zoomanji]

My belief is that it was N.O.'s plan to rough Favre regardless of the consequences. They did so all day and recieved the benefit of doing so while paying very little in regard to penalties. This may not be the game to champion your cause. IMO.

BTW good game plan and one they may want to revist vs. Manning, though I'm sure the Colts are already scheming for this.

I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune if Brees got picked up, and driven into the ground and you were stuck pinning your hopes on Mark Brunell to lead the Saints to victory on the cusp of your first Superbowl ever.

Edit for a more general answer: Fact is, this is now an offensive league with many rules favoring the offensive players. (see rules for DBs vs. WRs). The league knows that the general viewing public likes high flying offensives like they like homeruns in baseball. Add to that, that there are not even 32 really good NFL quality QBs in the world, they will continue to protect the likes of Manning, Brady, Brees and Favre like their league depends on it... and it does.

On 2nd though, this is such a bad time for me to bring up this discussion that it isn't worth it. Mods please delete this thread.

Best

 

[Mario Kart]

Actually, I think the Saints were hitting Favre late intentionally all game long; there could have been more penalties called, including on the play where they hurt his ankle. If you're out there head hunting, you'd better expect you're going to get some roughing calls.

I have not been able to see the game yet. Only was able to listen to it. But, was it really bad or blatant that the Saints were gunning for him? I ask because I am curious as I have heard this from many people from varying backgrounds.

In yesterday's local paper Saints DE Will Smith admitted that the Saints intended to hit Favre as much as possible. He ackowledged that the penalties were the result of their aggresive effort to put a pounding on the 40-year old quarterback. In the end, the strategy worked. In the 4th quater Favre was limited because of the brutal abuse he received from the Saints' D. I am not sure any quarterback other than Favre would have been able to play the entire game.

If true, they paid for it with two roughing the passer penalties? I think any defense would gladly pay 30 yards at different times for having the ability to hit the quarterback at will. Again, I have not watched it so I am not sure how many times Favre was hit or intentionally hit but if anywhere true, I would bet those Saints players might have been more dumbfounded to see Favre get up each time and still be effective. Again, 30 yards for a less effective quarterback is a pretty good dividend to pay, no?

 

[John 14:6]

If true, they paid for it with two roughing the passer penalties? I think any defense would gladly pay 30 yards at different times for having the ability to hit the quarterback at will. Again, I have not watched it so I am not sure how many times Favre was hit or intentionally hit but if anywhere true, I would bet those Saints players might have been more dumbfounded to see Favre get up each time and still be effective. Again, 30 yards for a less effective quarterback is a pretty good dividend to pay, no?

The Saints were using a good game plan to try and rattle Favre. If anything, the game was a demonstration that QB hits should maybe receive stiffer penalties...

 

[Doug B]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought all the roughing penalties being discussed here were borderline. The types of calls that routinely go unflagged, even with 2009's rulebook and enforcement tendencies.

The personal foul when McCray hit Favre after the reverse handoff ... was that exact kind of hit on a QB disallowed by a recent rule change? For instance, if an RB or OL gets nailed like that, is it called?

 

[az_prof]

The biggest problem with roughing the passer penalty among others (unsportsmanlike conduct, unnecessary roughness) is their lack of consistent enforcement and clarity. I really don't care what the rule is but the NFL MUST be more consistent in enforcement and if the rules were clearer that might help.

To me there is a real problem when after so many big games the conversation is more about the refereeing than the game and the players. In football the referees are too central and too involved. It really detracts from the purity of the game.

 

[treat88]

If true, they paid for it with two roughing the passer penalties? I think any defense would gladly pay 30 yards at different times for having the ability to hit the quarterback at will. Again, I have not watched it so I am not sure how many times Favre was hit or intentionally hit but if anywhere true, I would bet those Saints players might have been more dumbfounded to see Favre get up each time and still be effective. Again, 30 yards for a less effective quarterback is a pretty good dividend to pay, no?

The Saints were using a good game plan to try and rattle Favre. If anything, the game was a demonstration that QB hits should maybe receive stiffer penalties...

Ugh.Where did the two step rule go when you need it.

 

[ookook]

(1) I would rather have inconsistent enforcement of a good rule than nonexistant enformcement of a good rule.

(2) The Saints probably got off light based on what I saw. Half of them had something written on their waist-towels the looked like Fxxxe mxxt dxe..

I agree that if anything it shows the enforecment should be greater if one can gainsuch an advantage by hitting someone with pretty much the sole intention of hurting them. That is right: I do not think they intended to rattle him but rather to hurt him so he couldn't play. They know he was the Vikings only chance to win and if they could not get to him while he had the ball they would nail him every chance they could when he no longer did.

 

[Green and Gold]

Another reason these rules are being implemented is that defensive players have been getting bigger (heavier) and stronger every year for decades now, whereas the QB is still a guy who is mostly stationary in the pocket.

The Saints game plan of "kill the quarterback, we won't be called for it as often since it's the playoffs" is just going to make things worse. Remember all the rule changes after the Patriot's secondary manhandled the Colts in the playoffs a few years back? Well, when you do that to a 40 year old QB who happens to be a household name, the NFL (aka overreaction league) is going to take notice. I can't wait to see what the next set of rules are.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

They will never get rid of this rule. The simple compromise if you will would be to have 2 separate penalties much like they have roughing the kicker and running into the kicker. Sometimes QBs are barely touched and that does not warrant a personal foul. It really does not warrant any penalty, but since they will never eliminate them altogether, at least they should make a 5 yarder for the less flagrant ones.

 

[Bayhawks]

The main problem is that the call is too subjective. We saw the one on the Saints where Favre did the play action fake. He was tackled just a split second after handing off. The defender has no way of knowing if Favre still has the ball, he doesn't go down on contact so the defender has to lift him up. Just a couple plays later he gets hit a good 2 seconds after getting rid of the ball with the defender looking right at him and it's not called. And I've seen that numerous times this year. A bam-bam play gets called , and then a blatant foul gets ignored.

That wasn't a split second, it was a good 2 seconds, which is forever when you are talking about an NFL game. Also, the Saints player knew Favre didn't have the ball. He didn't try to tackle him, he merely lowered his head, and used his helmet to drill Favre under the chin. If he had been trying to tackle him (thinking he was a ball carrier), he would have tried to wrap him up. I usually agree that the "roughing the passer" calls are unecessary, but that one was warranted.

 

[Dragon1952]

The main problem is that the call is too subjective. We saw the one on the Saints where Favre did the play action fake. He was tackled just a split second after handing off. The defender has no way of knowing if Favre still has the ball, he doesn't go down on contact so the defender has to lift him up. Just a couple plays later he gets hit a good 2 seconds after getting rid of the ball with the defender looking right at him and it's not called. And I've seen that numerous times this year. A bam-bam play gets called , and then a blatant foul gets ignored.

That wasn't a split second, it was a good 2 seconds, which is forever when you are talking about an NFL game. Also, the Saints player knew Favre didn't have the ball. He didn't try to tackle him, he merely lowered his head, and used his helmet to drill Favre under the chin. If he had been trying to tackle him (thinking he was a ball carrier), he would have tried to wrap him up. I usually agree that the "roughing the passer" calls are unecessary, but that one was warranted.

It might have been 2 seconds in slow motion.

 

[captain_amazing]

I think we need to put the quarterbacks in a sharkcage, witht he top open, so that he can sail the ball out. That way he will ALWAYS stay safe.

I think bubble wrap would work too, and it would be entertaining to hear all of the popping (who doesn't love that?!?!)

 

[treat88]

They will never get rid of this rule. The simple compromise if you will would be to have 2 separate penalties much like they have roughing the kicker and running into the kicker. Sometimes QBs are barely touched and that does not warrant a personal foul. It really does not warrant any penalty, but since they will never eliminate them altogether, at least they should make a 5 yarder for the less flagrant ones.

100% agree.I know it's a subjective call, but there really needs to be an element of intent for me to accept some of these calls as worth 15 yards.Half the calls are unavoidable and a natural consequence of the action of the play. Too many call where the defender couldn't have avoided the contact and still attempted to do his job.

 

[DropKick]

Both legit penalties.

 

[nittanylion]

I don't agree with the League's apparent stance involving roughing the passer, but I can understand why they do it...

...the thing that really cheeses me off is the pass interference stuff. For the life of me, I can't find any justification for such dramatic penalty that's so inconsistently called, and can have such a game-changing impact.

I mean, if they're going make these ticky-tack calls, and not even offer the opportunity for review, then the 'check and balance' ought to be by limiting the amount of yardage covered by the play.

From the line of scrimmage: 15 Yards and an automatic 1st Down. That's plenty, given the fact that they seem to call PI willy-nilly, with no logical consistency whatsoever.

This '15 yards from the spot of the foul' business is complete garbage, IMO, and has a real negative effect on the Game.

For me, there's not much worse than seeing an incomplete bomb, a questionable pass interference call, followed by the Ref saying 'the ball will be spotted on the 1-Yard Line. 1st and Goal, Team X'. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but to me, those long PI penalties really cheapen the Game.

Outside of PI, there isn't a Penalty in NFL Football longer than 15 Yards - Personal Fouls, etc. There's no reason I can think of as to why a PI penalty could theoretically cover the length of the field.

Remarkably inconsistent, both in theory and practice, in my view, and something that ought to be amended.

 

[Floyd The Barber]

If true, they paid for it with two roughing the passer penalties? I think any defense would gladly pay 30 yards at different times for having the ability to hit the quarterback at will. Again, I have not watched it so I am not sure how many times Favre was hit or intentionally hit but if anywhere true, I would bet those Saints players might have been more dumbfounded to see Favre get up each time and still be effective. Again, 30 yards for a less effective quarterback is a pretty good dividend to pay, no?

The Saints were using a good game plan to try and rattle Favre. If anything, the game was a demonstration that QB hits should maybe receive stiffer penalties...

Agreed. The Saints thugged it up and for the most part, got away with it. One good thing though, the league radar is up now, so the Saints are going to get ticky-tacked to death - and lose badly.