PDA

View Full Version : Need an explanation please...



inexorably
10-22-2012, 02:32 PM
Sorry if this has been brought up but I have a question...

Why wasn't JPP's forced fumble of RGIII considered a sack?

Honestly, I don't play fantasy football, I don't care about stats for the most part but I do take pride or satisfaction or what have you in knowing the Giants get after the QB and are among the leaders in sacks every year. Maybe its because I fell in love with seeing opposing QBs getting killed from the days of LT.

If you watch the play... JPP is right on RGIII after he faked a hand-off to Morris and tries to make a move but JPP tackles him and forces the fumble but this isn't considered a sack?

Why is this?

Or was the early tackle of RGIII by JPP not considered a sack, where he first did the Gangnam dance celebration thing? I'm just confused how this is figured out.

Stats wise the Giants are considered to have 3 sacks on the game... one each for Osi, Tuck, and JPP. I thought JPP should have had 2 sacks on the game.

Can someone explain to me why he doesn't?

Thanks.

Drez
10-22-2012, 02:34 PM
Because it was a running play and the scorekeepers correctly assigned it as such.

GmenFan1980
10-22-2012, 02:35 PM
RG3 was considered a runner, so it's a tackle for loss & a force fumble.

inexorably
10-22-2012, 02:57 PM
So, they determine sacks based on what play is called by the offense? There were receivers running routes on the play, they didn't just block the defensive backs on them for RGIII to run.

Also, during the play, RGIII didn't have a chance to run or pass or anything honestly.

Huh, learn something new everyday I guess. Still seems a little odd to me because the announcers and others called it a sack as well.

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 03:00 PM
If it's a fumble, it can't be a tackle or a sack.

A tackle ends the play.

Medisleman
10-22-2012, 03:05 PM
That should have been a sack. There is no way you can assume RGIII was going to run. He looked like it cause JPP was coming!

rtlax
10-22-2012, 03:05 PM
Nah you can have sack/fumbles on the same play. Just ask Osi, I think in this case it is not a sack because the offense Washington was running. Run option, QB is a running back, therefore tackle forced fumble not a sack. I think so anyway. One thing I love about the NFL, you can play football as a kid and in HS and even in college but there are so many runs and so much subtlety you learn something new or see something for the first time just about every week.

yoeddy
10-22-2012, 03:08 PM
If it's a fumble, it can't be a tackle or a sack.

A tackle ends the play.

That's not true...see all of the tomahawk strips that LT used to do on Jaworski that were recorded as sacks...

Tony Bruno
10-22-2012, 03:17 PM
I think if a QB is tackled behind the LOS regardless of what they were doing it should be recorded as a sack... Unless he runs out of bounds behind the LOS then Ill say it was a loss of yards... But if someone pushes him OOB behind the LOS Id say its a sack... Either way great play regardless...

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 03:18 PM
That's not true...see all of the tomahawk strips that LT used to do on Jaworski that were recorded as sacks...

I wasn't aware any of them were counted as sacks (unless the QB recovered the fumble).

yoeddy
10-22-2012, 03:28 PM
I wasn't aware any of them were counted as sacks (unless the QB recovered the fumble).

I know it's not the NFL rulebook (and therefore might not be reliable), but Wikipedia says "A sack is also credited when a defender causes the quarterback to fumble and the defending team recovers the ball behind or at the line of scrimmage."

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 03:33 PM
I know it's not the NFL rulebook (and therefore might not be reliable), but Wikipedia says "A sack is also credited when a defender causes the quarterback to fumble and the defending team recovers the ball behind or at the line of scrimmage."

Ah ok ... thanks for looking that up :)

Morehead State
10-22-2012, 03:33 PM
I wasn't aware any of them were counted as sacks (unless the QB recovered the fumble).
If a defender strips the ball its considered a sack. Unless another offensive player recovers it and carries it for a gain.
In the RG111 case, the scorer must have considered him a runner. A sack is tackling a PASSER behind the line of scrimmage.
How can they know for sure?....They can't. They just use their judgement.
Ultimately?....who cares. (unless it the defense on my FF team)

Morehead State
10-22-2012, 03:36 PM
Ah ok ... thanks for looking that up :)
WIKI is not exactly right. At least not completely. If the QB is conducting a running play and gets tackled behind the line its NOT a sack. He has to be at least at one time, looking to pass the ball.
If not, then the kneel down play would be considered a sack, and its not.
Again, it takes some common sense and judgement on the scorers behalf.

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 03:37 PM
If a defender strips the ball its considered a sack. Unless another offensive player recovers it and carries it for a gain.
In the RG111 case, the scorer must have considered him a runner. A sack is tackling a PASSER behind the line of scrimmage.
How can they know for sure?....They can't. They just use their judgement.
Ultimately?....who cares. (unless it the defense on my FF team)

As for the who cares part:

1) Stats are often used in contract negotiations.

2) Pro bowl selections.

3) Hall of Fame selections.

4) All of the above which leads to / enhances endorsement deals.

I think the correct keeping of those types of statistics (especially sacks) is very important for the players' career and legacy, no?

inexorably
10-22-2012, 03:44 PM
Ultimately?....who cares. (unless it the defense on my FF team)

As I said in the first post... I care and I don't play fantasy football.


WIKI is not exactly right. At least not completely. If the QB is conducting a running play and gets tackled behind the line its NOT a sack. He has to be at least at one time, looking to pass the ball.
If not, then the kneel down play would be considered a sack, and its not.
Again, it takes some common sense and judgement on the scorers behalf.

On a kneel down a qb isn't being tackled he is giving himself up on the play so why would it be considered a sack?

Also, RGIII didn't have a chance to make any kind of play, attempting to pass or run, because JPP was right in his face. And like I said, if you watch the play, there are offensive players running routes not just blocking for a run.

Anyway, appreciate the replies. I just found it kind of odd and guess I learned something new.

Morehead State
10-22-2012, 03:45 PM
As for the who cares part:

1) Stats are often used in contract negotiations.

2) Pro bowl selections.

3) Hall of Fame selections.

4) All of the above which leads to / enhances endorsement deals.

I think the correct keeping of those types of statistics (especially sacks) is very important for the players' career and legacy, no?

I care about our teams winning games. What you call something doesn't matter in that regard. As far as "negotiations"....who cares. Plus this isn't baseball, football is about performance on the field. Players "stats" are directly effected by the play of your teammates. GM's and agents all know this.

Morehead State
10-22-2012, 03:47 PM
As I said in the first post... I care and I don't play fantasy football.



On a kneel down a qb isn't being tackled he is giving himself up on the play so why would it be considered a sack?

Also, RGIII didn't have a chance to make any kind of play, attempting to pass or run, because JPP was right in his face. And like I said, if you watch the play, there are offensive players running routes not just blocking for a run.

Anyway, appreciate the replies. I just found it kind of odd and guess I learned something new.
if a QB goes back to pass and kneels down to avoid being hit...its a sack by the nearest defender. The reason a kneel down isn't a sack is not because he gives himself up, its because its not a pass play.
if a QB tries a QB sneak and loses a yard...its NOT a sack. Its all about the "passer" being tackled behind the LOS.

TheAnalyst
10-22-2012, 03:48 PM
It should be a sack. It's a strip sack, something OSI gets credited for all the time. How can they say for sure the QB was a runner? How many times did he burn our on the fake run, pass play over the middle? I don't agree

Morehead State
10-22-2012, 03:51 PM
It should be a sack. It's a strip sack, something OSI gets credited for all the time. How can they say for sure the QB was a runner? How many times did he burn our on the fake run, pass play over the middle? I don't agree
How can you say for sure he wasn't?
Again....its a judgement.

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 03:53 PM
I care about our teams winning games. What you call something doesn't matter in that regard. As far as "negotiations"....who cares. Plus this isn't baseball, football is about performance on the field. Players "stats" are directly effected by the play of your teammates. GM's and agents all know this.

Do I personally care? No. I was only trying to illustrate why someone would care (and have a valid stake in caring).

I don't think you're qualified to state what the GMs/agents know and don't know. However stats have been well documented in the contract negotiations, Pro Bowl selections and Hall of Fame selections (they are bandied about all the time, by agents, GMs, organizations, owners and the media).

And there's a mountain of difference between 9 sacks and 10 sacks on a season (double digit sacks being a prime requisite in DE negotiations) which is why one sack on a stat sheet can make a difference. Further compounded by the fact that there are so few NFL games each season.

In fact, this might constitute the end of the world. It is 2012 after all.

inexorably
10-22-2012, 03:54 PM
if a QB goes back to pass and kneels down to avoid being hit...its a sack by the nearest defender. The reason a kneel down isn't a sack is not because he gives himself up, its because its not a pass play.
if a QB tries a QB sneak and loses a yard...its NOT a sack. Its all about the "passer" being tackled behind the LOS.

My point is that the QB, RGIII, didn't have a chance to run or pass because he had JPP right in his face. He faked a hand off to Morris and then was hit. I just don't understand how it was determined he was a runner and not a passer because if he had time and saw the run wasn't going to work, he probably would have passed the ball to one of the route runners.

Its not a big deal and I loved the play no matter the ruling by the scorekeeper, I just wondered why it wasn't a sack and I guess I thought it should have been.

EliDaMANning
10-22-2012, 03:58 PM
If he is considered a runner then that means JPP should have 0 career sacks. Every QB is running for their lives when they see him coming.

Morehead State
10-22-2012, 04:00 PM
Do I personally care? No. I was only trying to illustrate why someone would care (and have a valid stake in caring).

I don't think you're qualified to state what the GMs/agents know and don't know. However stats have been well documented in the contract negotiations, Pro Bowl selections and Hall of Fame selections (they are bandied about all the time, by agents, GMs, organizations, owners and the media).

And there's a mountain of difference between 9 sacks and 10 sacks on a season (double digit sacks being a prime requisite in DE negotiations) which is why one sack on a stat sheet can make a difference. Further compounded by the fact that there are so few NFL games each season.

In fact, this might constitute the end of the world. It is 2012 after all.

But I'm not an agent. I'm a fan. I don't give a **** if a play is called a sack or not. And the difference between 10 sacks and 9 sacks is 1 sack.
thats all. One sack is not a mountain and it never kept any food out of anyone's mouth.
This is behind the scenes stuff that I simply don't care about. But don't kid yourself, some fans do care about the stats. I'm not one of them, but some do care a lot. I only care about winning games. And none of this matters with that.

As far as that play being a sack or not, I'd have to look at it. I think that generally if there is any chance that a QB intended to throw the ball in the play it should be considered a sack.

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 04:03 PM
But I'm not an agent. I'm a fan. I don't give a **** if a play is called a sack or not. And the difference between 10 sacks and 9 sacks is 1 sack.
thats all. One sack is not a mountain and it never kept any food out of anyone's mouth.
This is behind the scenes stuff that I simply don't care about. But don't kid yourself, some fans do care about the stats. I'm not one of them, but some do care a lot. I only care about winning games. And none of this matters with that.

As far as that play being a sack or not, I'd have to look at it. I think that generally if there is any chance that a QB intended to throw the ball in the play it should be considered a sack.

Are you the center of my universe that I live and die on what you care about?

You said "who cares ..." in your original reply ... asked and answered :p

Morehead State
10-22-2012, 04:08 PM
Are you the center of my universe that I live and die on what you care about?

You said "who cares ..." in your original reply ... asked and answered :p
Just looked at the play. It was definitely NOT a sack. There was a fake into the line, then RG took a definite step towards the line as a runner. there was no intention to pass.
That was a pure running play all the way.

And while I'm not the center of your universe, I would like to think that I'm within a reasonable radius.

Toadofsteel
10-22-2012, 04:10 PM
If he is considered a runner then that means JPP should have 0 career sacks. Every QB is running for their lives when they see him coming.

:beer:

/thread, right there...

giantsfam04
10-22-2012, 04:10 PM
They are considered sacks regardless, I think what it comes down to is the motion of the qb at the beginning of the play. If he makes a move like he is a runner then its a tackle for loss. If his initial motion appears to be setting up to pass then it would be considered a sack fumble.

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 04:14 PM
Just looked at the play. It was definitely NOT a sack. There was a fake into the line, then RG took a definite step towards the line as a runner. there was no intention to pass.
That was a pure running play all the way.

And while I'm not the center of your universe, I would like to think that I'm within a reasonable radius.

Oh I don't care if it was a sack or not (unless JPP intends on giving me a percentage of his paycheck). But I'll buy your analysis of the play (I'm still of the opinion that if it's a tackle, it can't be a fumble (and vice versa)).

And yes you're in a reasonable radius ... but only because I believe in String Theory. Or would you rather be a small planetoid?

inexorably
10-22-2012, 04:14 PM
Just looked at the play. It was definitely NOT a sack. There was a fake into the line, then RG took a definite step towards the line as a runner. there was no intention to pass.
That was a pure running play all the way.


Just watched the play on NFL Primetime and after looking at it a few times... looks like a running play to me as well.
Tackle for a loss and a forced fumble was the right call and not a sack.

thanks for the replies.

Morehead State
10-22-2012, 04:16 PM
They are considered sacks regardless, I think what it comes down to is the motion of the qb at the beginning of the play. If he makes a move like he is a runner then its a tackle for loss. If his initial motion appears to be setting up to pass then it would be considered a sack fumble.
I think thats right. But essentially a sack is tackling a passer behind the line. If there is any intent to pass at any time, its a sack.
On that play, there was definitly no intent to pass, that was a running play all the way. So...NO sack.

Toadofsteel
10-22-2012, 04:19 PM
Honestly, JPP will get his paycheck. We all know that. A forced fumble is just as good, if not better, than a sack, in terms of pass rush production...

Morehead State
10-22-2012, 04:19 PM
Oh I don't care if it was a sack or not (unless JPP intends on giving me a percentage of his paycheck). But I'll buy your analysis of the play (I'm still of the opinion that if it's a tackle, it can't be a fumble (and vice versa)).

And yes you're in a reasonable radius ... but only because I believe in String Theory. Or would you rather be a small planetoid?
I thought string theory was at least partially discredited.
have we had this convo before?
And as far as getting a sack AND a forced fumble...thats just how the NFL scores it. If you create a fumble from the QB, you get the sack as well, even if the QB didn't go down.

Kruunch
10-22-2012, 04:23 PM
I thought string theory was at least partially discredited.
have we had this convo before?
And as far as getting a sack AND a forced fumble...thats just how the NFL scores it. If you create a fumble from the QB, you get the sack as well, even if the QB didn't go down.

Might have, but with all these dimensions to keep track of who knows?!

BlueSanta
10-22-2012, 04:34 PM
So, they determine sacks based on what play is called by the offense? There were receivers running routes on the play, they didn't just block the defensive backs on them for RGIII to run.

Also, during the play, RGIII didn't have a chance to run or pass or anything honestly.

Huh, learn something new everyday I guess. Still seems a little odd to me because the announcers and others called it a sack as well.

if you rewatch the play the wrs all blocked and the lineman all fired out to runblock. It is a fine line but that is the correct call.

dave56dj
10-22-2012, 04:37 PM
No sack on the play cause it was deemed a QB run - it has zero to do with going to the ground - as he did go to the ground eventually - just without the ball - which would still be a sack. The reason it is no sack is because it was a designed run and the scorer deemed it this way, and correctly so.


Please note that a tackle or sack of a player who loses the ball is still a sack or a tackle - However a sack will not be credited if the QB is running in a designed manner (which it was)- not just running away from a defender on a passing play.

pino
10-22-2012, 04:42 PM
Not a sack, but it was a tackle for a loss (TFL). Just as good in my opinion.