Inside The Lost Sack

October 5th, 2012

RGIII drops back to pass and gets sacked at the six-inch line for a seven-yard loss by George Johnson and Mason Foster. Not so fast. Roger Goodell’s stat gremlins have stepped in to deliver their twisted brand of reality.

Scott Smith, on the fancy pants new blog on Buccaneers.com, explains why the NFL has stripped Foster and Johnson their sack.

On the play, Griffin takes a shotgun snap and is pretty quickly overwhelmed by Foster, Johnson and LB Lavonte David near the goal line.  At the time, it seemed pretty clear that the play was a sack.  However, Elias’ review of the play noted that all three receivers on the field immediately started blocking on the play, and that Griffin appeared to pause for just a moment before starting to run up the middle of the field.  RB Alfred Morris, who is lined up behind Griffin at the snap, rushes up the middle of the field and tries to throw a block on Foster but misses.

All of the evidence added up, in the eyes of the Elias statisticians to a designed running play, and it’s possible that the Washington coaching staff verified that opinion earlier this week.  As such, the stop of Griffin – since it wasn’t a passing play – is not officially considered a sack.  Instead, both Johnson and Foster get a tackle for loss.

As a result, the Buccaneers’ defense has eight sacks through four games, not nine.  The ruling did marginally help Tampa Bay’s already good rushing defense numbers, as that play is now scored as a run for a loss of seven.

It sickens Joe how the NFL invests so much energy getting the stats right but refuses to use technology to review a play like Mark Barron’s clean tackle of RGIII that senselessly drew a personal foul.

20 Responses to “Inside The Lost Sack”

  1. SteveK Says:

    Scott Smith:

    “As a result, the Buccaneers’ defense has eight sacks through four games, not nine. The ruling did marginally help Tampa Bay’s already good rushing defense numbers, as that play is now scored as a run for a loss of seven.”

    Who will be lower ranked in the NFL this year:

    Buc’s sacks vs Bucs TD throws?

    They are neck and neck with the worst of the worst. Gotta clean that up.

  2. SensibleBuc Says:

    @Steve

    Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t we in the top half of the league in sacks? We were at the beginning of last week.

  3. bucfanjeff Says:

    Does it change the score? If not, let’s move on.

  4. OB Says:

    Until the NFL figures out they now have QBs that are running backs that can throw and every time they are tackled behind the line is a sack if the ball is not tucked in, we will have this. The same applies to the roughing penalty.

  5. Buc Fan #237 Says:

    Lets wait to hear what Miguel thinks first.

    Chip Kelly would have gotten that sack count to 9 by now.

  6. Patrick Says:

    “uneccessary roughness”…………the dumbest freakin’ penalty in football. Can any ref care to explain in their terms what “unnecessary roughness” is? Any exact definition? The penalty I think is a matter of opinion and not a defined foul.

  7. Orlandobucfan Says:

    @Bucs fan 237
    That was probably one of the funniest comments I’ve seen in a while. I agree lets hold all judgment until Miguel has given his opinion. Is it possible for joe to lock the comment section for everyone except Miguel and once he posts then open the comments to the rest of us. After all he has watched all hard knocks episodes. So yeah hold off judgement till he tells us what to think.

  8. Patrick Says:

    Miguel is the new Thomas 2.2

  9. OAR Says:

    Orlando and Bucsfan237
    It is quite amazing the overall football knowledge that Mr. 110×16 Magnifico Gasser knows…..Now where did to I put my keyboard sarcasm rag, cause mine seems to be soaking wet!

  10. Have A Nice Day Says:

    TFL. Sack. Whatever. Both result in the same outcome so I don’t care what you call it so long as you call it a great play by the Bucs!

  11. MrGone Says:

    At least, 2.2 knew football.

  12. Ladyz Says:

    They may be the same person. I believe they both said they were lawyers.

  13. Orlandobucfan Says:

    @mrgone
    Agreed 2.2 at least had some valid points. I would trade the two.

  14. Patrick Says:

    Whatever happened to 2.2 anyway??

    Also what about Capt. Tim??

  15. Bucnjim Says:

    We need to set up some JBF head stones! Thomas 2.2 rest in peace….I do miss the good Capt. and his pirate lingo. Those were some funny posts although I think the Joe’s got tired of it after a while. The Captain was a hard core fan though. Thomas; was more a fan of being right than the team actually winning.

  16. Paul Says:

    They had to change it or else it’d be a safety. They couldn’t have it on the stat sheet with no safety. Runner gets forward progress.

  17. CaliBucFan Says:

    Anyone have a gif or link to video of the former-sack and the Barron slam?

  18. CaliBucFan Says:

    Also, hilarious that they can take away a sack but not a touchdown.

  19. The Dutcher Journal (Pete Dutcher) Says:

    I’m confused.

    I thought any time axquarterback isxtackled for a loss it is a sack? I thought a “tackle for loss” aplies only to every other ball carrier?

  20. Have A Nice Day Says:

    @Pete – As Hawaiian pointed out in an earlier post, with the NFL rulebook to back him up, if the QB is trying to advance the ball out of the pocket or the play is a designed QB run, the QB is considered a ball carrier and not a passer. Same as if it was a QB sneak that lost yards.

 
 

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *