NFL Roughin the Passer

[Rick KY]

From the Bengals v Buccaneers game Sunday...

Did anyone see the play from this game when Bengal Smith tackled Buc Gradkowski for an apparent sack, only to have the R throw a flag for roughing the passer? Can anyone explain the rule in the NFL that allows for a roughing the passer flag when no pass is thrown? Is this simply a case of over preotecting the QB?

[OverAndBack]

Mike Carey explains:

"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.

http://www.tbo.com/sports/bucs/MGBZCUH5CTE.html

[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

[Rick KY]

As I saw the play the QB was bent forward at the waist to protect the ball and when contacted by the defender, he fell forward onto his head. I do not believe the defender drove him into the ground. The contact just was not that violent. I do not get NFL Network, but hope to get the explanation second hand.

If this is what the NFL wants to protect the QB's, then defenders will be getting called for cheap fouls, and paying fines an awful lot. I understand the need to protect high-priced players, but it is football after all.

Carey's explanation was self-contradictory. He said is was not unnecessarily rough, then he said the defender gave extra effort and drove his head into the ground. It sounds like Carey may be covering his a$$.

[Rick KY]

Does anyone know if this play was discussed on NFL Network on Wednesday night? If so, what was said by the NFL about it?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Rick KY

Does anyone know if this play was discussed on NFL Network on Wednesday night? If so, what was said by the NFL about it?

Yes, it was discussed. Pereira said it was unnecessary roughness and not roughing the passer since he hadn't actually thrown the ball. Rich Eisen asked about the fact the call overturned a turnover on the play when the QB fumbled on the hit. He addressed that as well. Here is some actual text from the show:

"You really technically can't have roughing the passer but you can have unnecessary roughness"

"If a passer gets hit by the crown of the helmet even though he ends up not throwing the pass it converts to an unnecessary roughness even though it is the passer. Technically since no pass it's not roughing the passer but the UNR it is."

"Now the other issue it's a judgement call the referee has to make and in Mike Carey's mind...he felt that he drove his head into the ground. And we are in the mode of protecting the quarterback and we are talking about any act that if the referee thinks it's unnecessary he is to throw the flag. This is the one area we are going to protect."

"The question is does he drive him down into the ground with the head. Does he give him the extra umph down into the ground."

"It was never a turnover. What we ended up doing was ruling him down here. The line judge came in and ruled forward progress was stopped on the play."

"If we are going to lean we are going to lean on the side of the protection of the quarterback."

"Have we gone too far to protect the passer? That's the question that has been put to the (competition) committee; the question that has been put to the clubs. And what we're doing is basically following their guidance and that is to protect him. It's an area of the game that involves judgement and it involves safety and we'll live with the judgements that are made by the referees."

I could see this going either way but understand why it was ruled the way it was. Remember Mike had to make a judgement call based on what he saw real time. It sounds like he has the support of the league as well.

BTW...if you have Comcast On Demand, you can watch a replay of the officiating section of NFL Total Access.

[OverAndBack]

You know why they protect the quarterback, to the point of overprotection sometimes?

Because they realize that those are the players people want to see in the game.

The XFL thought it was all cool and retro and Butkus-y with their "we're not going to baby our quarterbacks" stuff, which is fine in theory, until the mediocre quarterbacks you start with get hurt and you have to go to guys who weren't even good enough to start for a college you've ever heard of.

Among other problems, I think they realized about halfway through their one season exactly why the NFL wants to protect quarterbacks.

[PSU213]

I agree with what was said before that people want to see the "star" QB's (although it's questionable if Gradkowski is truly a 'star.') And the NFL goes to great (in my mind, ridiculous) lengths to protect their QB's. It sounds like Carey would have caused a lot less confusion if he just called it 'unnecessary roughness' like it clearly should have been.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by PSU213

I agree with what was said before that people want to see the "star" QB's (although it's questionable if Gradkowski is truly a 'star.')

Hey, if Cap Rooney and Tyler Cherubini hadn't gone down, we never would have had Willie Beamon. Though I think Cherubini just sucked, didn't he?

And the NFL goes to great (in my mind, ridiculous) lengths to protect their QB's.

Considering the investments they (and their TV partners) have in them, I think they're great lengths, but I don't think they're ridiculous.

It sounds like Carey would have caused a lot less confusion if he just called it 'unnecessary roughness' like it clearly should have been.

Oh, completely agree there, and considering how meticulous Carey usually is, I'm at a loss to explain that one. UNR is one of the first things you learn when you're a kid watching football.