Two times in the last two days a quarterback has been considered down due to forward progress being stopped. The second of the two was actually intentional grounding so how they called it literally had no affect on the game. However, the first gave Phoenix a safety. Now I'm absolutely shocked that there has not been more talk about the first one anywhere in the media or on forums. I feel like I'm on crazy pills. Now, I understand that there is this whole rule allowing referees to stop a play because a runner no longer has forward progress but it's very rarely applied. Usually you have to have a runner or a receiver swallowed up by multiple defenders being driven backwards and usually they don't blow it dead until he's been driven back 5 or 10 yards.. Since I first started following football in 1995 I had never once seen this rule applied in this manner, not at the professional or collegiate level. Now I've seen it twice in a 24 hour span. I understand the need to defend a quarterback but the bottom line was he was in no immediate danger of being hurt. There was on lineman wrapping him up from behind with his arms around his waste. No part of his body that would constitute being down came within 18 inches of the ground, he always had his arms free, he was never looking to move forward, and he completed a forward pass to an eligible receiver. How can one justify that as being a sack and a safety? What's next, two hand touch for qbs? Am I on crazy pills or do any of you agree?

---

I missed the play today, but yesteday it was the correct call IMO.

---

Well..........once again, they are "judgement calls". So the ref makes it, and whether you agree with it or not, there's nothing you can really do about it.

---

I do agree with both of the calls.

---

I miss both calls.

Video evidence will help.

---

Eagles vs. Vikings
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=54458&season=2008&displayPage=tab_gamecenter 
The play starts at about 3:25

Falcons vs. Cardinals
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=54455&season=2008&displayPage=tab_gamecenter 
The play starts at about 4:23

So why does everyone think they're the right calls?

---

The Ryan one i would say was the right call. The reason, the defender had him in the grasp, and the ONLY reason he didn't get slammed down was the Atlanta offensive lineman that was holding the defender from behind. So either way it would have been a safety.

McNabb, i don't agree with that one. He got the ball away before he was pushed back more then a yard.
But i guess if the QB's want to be protected, they have to take those kinds of calls that go against them. Otherwise, the defender should have a right to slam him down to prevent him from making that kind of play.
JMO

---

Yeah, after I watched it again I saw the holding which could have been called. So in that sense it should be a safety. But I just don't like it that refs see something and think it should be a certain way so they just pull a call out of their ass to make it happen. For instance, the "illegal forward pass" called on Rodgers in the Minnesota game. There's a very good argument for intentional grounding but when one official said there was a receiver in the area the other guy decided to just make something up so it could still be a safety. And as for the protecting the quarterback issue, you have to draw the line somewhere. This is football, people get hurt, it's a risk players willingly assume when they step out on the field. A couple years ago, Vince Young got wrapped up by Kiwanuka. He stopped before the whistle and Young got away, the Titans got a first down and went on to win the game. I don't recall anyone saying the play should have been called dead to "protect the quarterback." Yet, under the rulings made this past weekend it would have been. That's because the rule had never been used this way until this weekend. It's not an efficient way to protect the quarterbacks, Ryan got slammed to the ground anyway. And now you're basically saying quarterbacks can't get away and make a play or throw the ball at the last second. Furthermore, as you mentioned before it's a judgment call. That's one more reason to limit it. The more chances we give refs to make judgment calls the more chances they have to control the game. There's no subjectivity in whether or not a player's knee touched the ground but there is in a ref trying to figure out well can the quarterback escape or is he in danger and if such when should I end the play. I don't want this to be another step in the direction of no one being allowed to touch a quarterback. This isn't a preschool two hand touch league, it's the NFL. Quarterbacks aren't fragile little children, they can take a pounding every so often.


Okay, sorry for the rant but I need to let this all out or my head is going to explode.



P.S. for reference here is the video of Vince Young

It occurs at about 0:39

---

Mi_keys.........I agree with you totally!
Thats one of the problems, one ref's idea of "in the grasp" is not necessarily the same for another ref. As long as it's a "judgement call" they can call it........or NOT call it as they want.
Theres no black or white in it, it's all grey.

---

Speaking of the topic, one rule I would like to see changed, is the play along the sideline, when a player goes out of bounds, but the clock does not stop, because his forward progress was stopped.

I think, at least in the last 2 minutes of the game, if a player goes out of bounds, the clock should stop. As the rule stands now, you have to pretty much run out of bounds untouched, or the clock will keep moving.

I remember a few years back we were driving against Houston with under a minute left, Driver caught a pass from Favre along the sideline with about 20 seconds left, was pushed out of bounds, and the clock kept running. No one noticed at first, as everyone assumed since he got out of bounds that the clock should have stopped.

Thankfully, Favre noticed at the last second and called a timeout. We ended up kicking the field goal to win the game. But thats a rule I definitely think needs to be changed. No judgement calls; if he gets out of bounds, the clock should stop.