Is anyone fed up with this QB sack rule in the NFL?

Question

I was watching ESPN earlier today and they were saying that the refs have been controlling the game too much.
I'm a Seahawk fan and I was disgusted when I saw the flag being thrown against the Packer def. lineman for roughing the passer. He wasn't close to the QB's head and Hasselback turned his head after he released the ball. Maybe to get a personal foul called a QB can duck and turn his head toward the rusher to get a penalty called. How can a rusher stop his full speed rush in split second decision?
I know it was Matt's first game back from an injury on a freak accident, but come on, let them play.
A good example is when the Giant def. end stopped his sack on Vince Young because he thought the ball was thrown and didn't want a 15yd penalty called against him.
Who else thinks that QB's should take their lumps and let's get the playing of the game continue w/o being controlled by the refs?

Answer 1

The Mathias Kiwanuka play for the Giants was a perfect example of how the rules can be in the heads of these defensive players. If that rule wasnt in place and if the officials didnt throw flags if you sneeze in the general direction of a QB, Kiwanuka wouldve planted Young like a Tulip and the Giants win that game. I dont think the rule is bad, i just think the interpretation needs a little tweeking...if you hit a qb and he still has the ball as yer in the process of tackling him and then throws in direction of a receiver or even throws it away, THAT is NOT roughing.... It makes you actually wish that sumone would get to a QB and just hit him so freegin hard he wouldnt get up...youre not supposed to wish for guys to get knocked loopie, but that rule makes you want the QB for the opposing team to get knocked into a drooling stupor.

Answer 2

To be considered a sack the quarterback ought to intend to throw a forward bypass. If the play is designed for the quarterback to hurry the ball, any loss is subtracted from the quarterback's rushing entire. If the quarterback's motive isn't obvious statisticians use particular standards, such because of the fact the offensive line blocking off scheme, to choose for. different unique circumstances the place a loss reduces a quarterback's rushing entire (no longer a sack) are "kneel downs" (used to run day off the sport clock), and aborted performs, inclusive of a fumbled snap that the quarterback falls directly to maintain possession. A participant will get carry of credit for 0.5 of a sack whilst diverse gamers make contributions to the sacking of a quarterback.

Answer 3

I agree that the rule is getting out of control but I also believe something needs to be in place to protect the QBs. There's just too many freak injuries happening now because defenses are getting bigger and faster. When you ur linemen can run 4.5 40s and are 280 lbs that's asking for trouble. They should specify penalties for the different infractions depending on severity and i think they should allow replay on roughing the passer penalties. The GB penalty was definitely momentum and shouldn't be flagged.

Answer 4

I hate the city of Seattle with a passion. I had a roommate from there. He robbed me blind. No offense. I don't watch football anymore. You mentioned the ref's having too much control over the game. That's exactly why I don't watch. I got sick and tired of seeing the outcome of a game decided on a whim of one man. It's the same with all team sports.
I'm a big golf fan now. The players themselves enforce the rules.
I had to answer your question though. This is the first I heard of that rule.
That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Maybe they should just change the rules so that all you have to do is touch the quarterback with one finger then he's down. What a crock!
.

Answer 5

I am, I despise anything that gives the sissy little quarterbacks preferential treatment over anyone else on the field. Last I checked, football was still a man's sport. If they don't want them to get hit then they should start paying them less money since they don't have to deal with the same hardships of the other players. In the words of Jack Lambert of the greatest and only real NFL dynasty, the Steelers of the 70's, "Why don't they put 'em in a skirt!?!?!"

Answer 6

I think it's crap. They play football, what else to they need their mommy's out there with them? Serioulsy! Football is a contact sport. Now i know some of these guys can hit pretty hard, but as they say "if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen!". I understand roughing the passer when he gets hit way after the balls been thrown, but a sack is a sack, and it's redic. that they pretty much can't get hit w/ out a flag getting thrown.

Answer 7

QB's are your highest paid position on the field if you were a team owner and your qb kept getting hurt because of bone crushing hits by lineman and linebackers wouldn't you want to implement rules that protect them.

Answer 8

The QB doesnt need protection from the refs..hes wearing a helmet, pads, and knows what it feels like to get hit. The QBs arent whimps but the refs are treating them like it. What about WRs and RBs. The same things happen to them but nothing happens just because of their position.

Answer 9

No because if you are not doing your job as a QB that is going to happen most of the time anyways. Do you feel where I am comin from. I am not saying don't be a QB but I am saying that you should get rid of the ball a little quicker to prevent this.

Answer 10

it is pretty stupid..it almost taking the fun out of the game..why do the QB's even where protection gear if no one can touch them..they are getting protected way too much