NFL Roughin the Passer

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rick KY

Is this simply a case of over preotecting the QB?

This is what the NFL does. You do not have to like it, but the NFL expects the defenders not to go overboard in any way with the defenders. I did not see the call, but I am sure it is within the philosophy of what the NFL expects.

Peace

[Rick KY]

I am a Bengals fan, but I'm asking as an official who works high school football only. The explanation Mike Carey gave sounds pretty good although he contradicted himself a little. I still disagree with the call. I was specifically looking for rule support for his call. Simply to say the NFL protects QB's is not what I was hoping for, besides, I already know that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rick KY

I am a Bengals fan, but I'm asking as an official who works high school football only. The explanation Mike Carey gave sounds pretty good although he contradicted himself a little. I still disagree with the call. I was specifically looking for rule support for his call. Simply to say the NFL protects QB's is not what I was hoping for, besides, I already know that.

One thing you need to realize that this is not just about the rules; it is about the philosophy that is involved. If the NFL wants the officials to be very strict on enforcing a rule or a philosophy, it really does not matter what the rule says. Now you can look for the Vice-President of Officiating to make a comment this Wednesday on NFL network about this call. You might get the explanation you are looking for then. But if you think there is a rule out there that is going to satisfy you, you likely do not understand the philosophy behind what the NFL wants (neither do I much of the time). Remember, a player was fined for a facemask foul that took place last week. The NFL expects much more of their players than we do from an amateur point of view.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mike Carey as reported by the Tampa Tribune

"The ruling on the field was roughing the passer. Technically, it wasn't unnecessary roughness because the pass didn't get away. But in the tackle, the defender stopped forward progress, drove him backwards, and then at the end gave him the extra effort and stuffed his head into the ground. We're directed to protect the safety of the quarterback. Most people don't understand it [unnecessary roughness], so we just called it roughing the passer," Carey said.

I could only hope this is a mis-quote. If the foul committed was "unnecessary roughness" then that's the foul that should have been reported.

[JRutledge]

Was there are automatic first down given?

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Was there are automatic first down given?

Peace

Both UR and RTP are automatic first downs in the NFL.

As described, I could see flagging this in a high school game. If I'm blowing progress stopped and then there's a little extra effort that sends a player's head into the ground, it's unnecessary roughness.

[JRutledge]

That is right, I forgot about that (this is also an automatic first down at the NCAA level too if I am not mistaken).

I think driving the head into the ground is what got this called. I am not saying it is a solid call or a bad call, but what I did see was the player try to plant the player head first. Now whether he accomplished slamming the QB head first is up for debate. Just remember what we do at other levels does not apply to the NFL philosophy.

Peace