Unless someone gets into an obvious throwing motion, or at least makes it clear that the intent was to pass, then you can't award a sack. If not, then as I previously stated, you have to assume every reverse, draw, or trap is a sack because they ball carrier COULD pass if they so chose

Since when the fuck has a RB been sacked? How the hell does that even come into this discussion? Although, does pose an interesting question in my mind, what dictates the QB position? I would presume whomever accepts the ball from the center first would be deemed the QB. So, a RB could be sacked? lol

I apparently failed to state the obvious, that I'm referring to a QB (player accepting the snap) being tackled for no gain or a loss. I think that should be considered a sack.

:pottytrain2:

This might be redundant, but I'm guessing if the QB makes no visible attempt to pass the ball, whether he has the option or not, and is tackled for no gain or loss, it's considered a run. However, if the QB drops back and makes an attempt to pass, it's a sack.

I think that's the 'judgment' decision process. At least, that's what makes sense in my pea sized brain.

---

If a RB who gets the hand-off from a QB attempts to pull up an pass the ball but is tackled behind the line it's considered a tackle, not a sack. Why? I THINK it's because he didn't receive the initial snap of the ball. Because a QB's first objective typically is pass, where a player receiving a hand-off is typically to run. I don't know for sure though. And really, I think this whole RB being sacked absurd comment is a waste of time and really taking way from the question I was asking in the first place.

---

I know you were referring to a QB, I'm saying the definition of a sack needs to be consistent. You were saying that since vick could have chosen to pass since a TE was on the line, it should be considered a sack.

My point is that, using that logic, any player who possess the ball behind the LOS technically has the option to pass. With the wildcat and it's bastardized forms, flea flickers ,option passes in the flat, etc. the qb isn't the only one who can pass.

On a reverse or any running play, a wr/rb could stop at any point, pull up and pass...but you assume it's a running play until the wr/rb actually DOES stop to pull up and pass...same thing with the vick example. Until he gets into some sort of a throwing motion, you have to assume it's a run, thus can't be considered a sack.

Stemming from the same argument, would you consider a 3rd and inches qb sneak that failed to be a sack?

the rb argument is relevant because I'm saying,( or at least theorizing since I don't know the 'rule,' ) that a sack has nothing to do with if it's a qb/wr/rb/water boy. My understanding is that a sack is a tackle behind the LOS of any player who has displayed the intentions to pass, and conversely, anyone tackled behind the LOS who DOESN'T intend to pass, can't be "sacked,' it's just a tackle for loss.

I could be wrong, but I think even if a punter has to throw because of a bad snap but gets tackled, that it counts as a sack.

The sack is predicated on who receives the snap of the football. So on a reverse that wouldn't be a sack even if he was attempting to throw after the handoff. So as I see it, the places where the sack question really become gray are in the situations of any option offense like the wildcat. That's why I believe TFL are just as important as sacks.

---

If you enjoy engaging in complicated discussions about simple things, Packers Home is the place to be.

---

xn + a1xn1 + ... + an2x2 + an1x + an = number of sacks

Personally.. fix the catch issue before this becomes a worry.. this is even more subjective than catch vs non catch.

Musccy... please define the variables in the above equation, especially the ...

;)

---

You're missing some powers there musccy.

Like, telekineses or some shit.

---