dave mcbride Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) It was a sack. If that was Hughes and Brady we would be screaming for a sack. I love how no one is complaining about the officiating in this game. The Bills were gifted a TD there with the missed sack and the missed hold on the next play. At the risk of sounding like a REALLY broken record, this isn't called anymore. The rules changed in 1991, but most fans haven't seemed to have caught on. Certainly, announcers haven't. The league doesn't want to risk overturning a great, memorable play be either the offense (TD throw as the QB is going down!) or the defense ("He's going down and flings it up and it's ... picked off! The 300 lb DT returns it for a TD!"). The reason they changed how they judged this is because it didn't protect the QB at all (who always went down regardless of the rule) and it nullified some great plays. There were a bunch of controversial "in the grasp" calls in the 80s that nullified memorable plays, and the league had to do something about it. Edited November 9, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 It wasn't a missed sack. Suh didn't have control, and Taylor could conceivably have gotten away (or at least avoided the sack, which is what happened.) But anything Suh did at that point to gain control and get the sack would have been a personal foul. Basically, the moment Suh grabbed him, he couldn't sack him. That's not even bad officiating - it's a bad set of rules. Suh spun him around so it wasn't for lack of effort. He spun him around and Taylor still didn't go down. I don't see why it should be a dead play. http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25367291/ndamukong-suh-tells-refs-hell-slam-the-bleep-out-of-qb-after-blown-sack-call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 At the risk of sounding like a REALLY broken record, this isn't called anymore. The rules changed in 1991, but most fans haven't seemed to have caught on. Certainly, announcers haven't. The league doesn't want to risk overturning a great, memorable play be either the offense (TD throw as the QB is going down!) or the defense ("He's going down and flings it up and it's ... picked off! The 300 lb DT returns it for a TD!"). The reason they changed how they judged this is because it didn't protect the QB at all (who always went down regardless of the rule) and it nullified some great plays. There were a bunch of controversial "in the grasp" calls in the 80s that nullified memorable plays, and the league had to do something about it. Correction: it is called, but VERY rarely. Usually by the official blowing the play dead, because it's pretty clear the play is over (the QB is wrapped in a bear hug or something). I've seen it a handful of times in the past decade. What isn't called anymore is things like Randall Cunningham standing in the pocket and being called down and sacked because a pass rusher laying on the ground grabbed his heel, thus had him "in the grasp." (I recall something that stupid actually happening.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Correction: it is called, but VERY rarely. Usually by the official blowing the play dead, because it's pretty clear the play is over (the QB is wrapped in a bear hug or something). I've seen it a handful of times in the past decade. What isn't called anymore is things like Randall Cunningham standing in the pocket and being called down and sacked because a pass rusher laying on the ground grabbed his heel, thus had him "in the grasp." (I recall something that stupid actually happening.) you're right about the bear hug plays, and I think that's simply to prevent cheap QB fumbles. You're absolutely right about Cunningham, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Suh spun him around so it wasn't for lack of effort. He spun him around and Taylor still didn't go down. I don't see why it should be a dead play. http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25367291/ndamukong-suh-tells-refs-hell-slam-the-bleep-out-of-qb-after-blown-sack-call It shouldn't. That's the problem. The rules prevented Suh from making the sack, once he grabbed Taylor. He EASILY could have thrown Taylor to the ground when he spun him, but would have drawn a roughing the passer penalty. Suh was bound by a set of rules that prevented him from completing the play - he's required to take the QB to the ground to get the sack, butvhe can't take the QB to the ground without drawing a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Anyone that thinks they'll call that play dead is a total moron. Total and complete moron. They call a QB down when he's in the grasp and controlled. Bottom line: if you can throw the ball away, you aren't in the grasp and controlled. Suh is an idiot, and Miami got what they deserved. I dunno about "if you can throw the ball away", but certainly if you are still moving your feet and your body goes with it, it's hard to argue that you're "in the grasp". Suh doesn't need to "slam" the QB and draw an unnecessary roughness, he needs to wrap, tackle, and drive to the ground. If Taylor were wrapped up, it would have been a whistle and a sack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Miami got shafted in that sequence. Suh should have been credited with a sack, instead they had to take the penalty. Then on the Sammy's TD Miller hog tied him and there was no call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Miami got shafted in that sequence. Suh should have been credited with a sack, instead they had to take the penalty. Then on the Sammy's TD Miller hog tied him and there was no call. No he shouldn't have been credited with a sack. But he did get screwed on Sammy's TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) It shouldn't. That's the problem. The rules prevented Suh from making the sack, once he grabbed Taylor. He EASILY could have thrown Taylor to the ground when he spun him, but would have drawn a roughing the passer penalty. Suh was bound by a set of rules that prevented him from completing the play - he's required to take the QB to the ground to get the sack, butvhe can't take the QB to the ground without drawing a penalty. My problem is with the idea that Suh could've but didn't. He isn't the type, and after he spun him around I don't think he had the leverage. And beyond that why it would have been a roughing the passer call if Suh did take him down as he was trying to throw the football. So I guess I agree with you under the premise that he would've gotten penalized. Edited November 10, 2015 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Does anybody have any clue how strong a man Suh is? This is a player that required 3 blockers at Nebraska. It's easy to forgot how powerful he is with the way he takes plays off. Following the "no sack" call, I said to myself Suh is going to get his sack on the next play. When the man is truly inspired little is capable of stopping him. It nearly took our line to jump on his back to prevent him from getting a sack on the TD pass. Suh let up, it was obvious he let up. He let up because to finish that play the way he would have liked to finish that play would have resulted in a personal foul. Which is basically what he said in so many words. Does anybody really think Suh wouldn't have finished that play off if he had no threat of a fine or personal foul? Edited November 10, 2015 by KzooMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Does anybody have any clue how strong a man Suh is? This is a player that required 3 blockers at Nebraska. It's easy to forgot how powerful he is with the way he takes plays off. Following the "no sack" call, I said to myself Suh is going to get his sack on the next play. When the man is truly inspired little is capable of stopping him. It nearly took our line to jump on his back to prevent him from getting a sack on the TD pass. Suh let up, it was obvious he let up. He let up because to finish that play the way he would have liked to finish that play would have resulted in a personal foul. Which is basically what he said in so many words. Does anybody really think Suh wouldn't have finished that play off if he had no threat of a fine or personal foul? If players had no threat of a fine or personal foul, they could do all sorts of ungodly things on the field. The rules are there for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Miami got shafted in that sequence. Suh should have been credited with a sack, instead they had to take the penalty. Then on the Sammy's TD Miller hog tied him and there was no call. I'm now thinking that the non-call on that hold (clearly visible to the refs) may have been payback for the f-bombs Suh directed at them on the previous play. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case - i have to think that the refs hate that sort of verbal abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I'm now thinking that the non-call on that hold (clearly visible to the refs) may have been payback for the f-bombs Suh directed at them on the previous play. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case - i have to think that the refs hate that sort of verbal abuse. I wouldn't put it past them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimp Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Everyone in this thread knows that a horse collar tackle means the tackler has their hand inside the collar and pulls the runner down backwards, right? Looks like he grabbed his shoulder not his collar, but Tyrod did benefit from a bad hc call a few weeks back so who knows I guess. I don't want to see anyone hurt but I side with Suh, slam the **** out of the qb. I wouldn't put it past them. yep... Edited November 10, 2015 by Chimp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) I wouldn't put it past them. ... And I wouldn't put it past TT to tell Miller that he might have free rein on that play -- Taylor was right there and surely heard the exchange. Miller's held not only blatantly, but early and often (from the start to the end of the play). Edited November 10, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 If players had no threat of a fine or personal foul, they could do all sorts of ungodly things on the field. The rules are there for a reason. The rules in this situation prevented a player from making a tackle. Not a horse collar tackle but a legal tackle that likely would have been deemed a personal foul because in order to execute a tackle in this positioning he would have had to slam him to the ground with a lot of force. Something I have no doubt Suh could have accomplished with half his left hand. Taylor likely doesn't get up if Suh actually does what he is capable of. So you could argue the rules worked as they protected a player or you could argue they didn't because they prevented a player from performing a basic requirement of the job. I don't know what the right answer is. Either way, fairly moot point as Suh got completely jobbed on the following play. If those two plays happened consecutively to the same Bills player and led to this outcome the board would probably overload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimp Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 ... And I wouldn't put it past TT to tell Miller that he might have free rein on that play -- Taylor was right there and surely heard the exchange. Miller's held not only blatantly, but early and often (from the start to the end of the play). If he did then he is very game aware and that's good. I was scared for him the following play. Suh is a bad, bad man. And crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Not a sack. He was upright and moving. Suh may be correct about drawing a flag if he had whipped him to the turf, but it's just one of those things that falls within gray area Edited November 10, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Suh threatened to do bodily harm next time. He had a good point IMO as the play should have been ruled a sack. Agree on the second sentence. The first sentence was my fear during the game & will be in future games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 The rules in this situation prevented a player from making a tackle. Not a horse collar tackle but a legal tackle that likely would have been deemed a personal foul because in order to execute a tackle in this positioning he would have had to slam him to the ground with a lot of force. Something I have no doubt Suh could have accomplished with half his left hand. Taylor likely doesn't get up if Suh actually does what he is capable of. So you could argue the rules worked as they protected a player or you could argue they didn't because they prevented a player from performing a basic requirement of the job. I don't know what the right answer is. Either way, fairly moot point as Suh got completely jobbed on the following play. If those two plays happened consecutively to the same Bills player and led to this outcome the board would probably overload. Suh was in no position to slam TT to the ground. All he could have done was what he attempted to do, which was spin-throw him to the ground, and that's not a penalty. But TT kept his feet, spun around to face upfield, and threw the ball away to avoid a sack. To blow the play dead, Suh would have had to have complete control over TT and that obviously wasn't the case. I'm not sure where in that sequence anyone expects the refs should have blown the whistle, unless we want to start making the NFL two-hand touch, which would negate a lot of great plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts