ADVERTISEMENT

The Roughing the Passer BS Call

Franisdaman

HR King
Nov 3, 2012
82,246
104,228
113
Heaven, Iowa
On the postgame radio show Dolph asked KF about this call. KF said the refs told him that the Iowa defender's eyes were up and that he tackled the QB too hard. KF then said that the NFL rules must to be creeping into the college rules.

Talk about not only a BS call but a BS explanation.

How bout the refs just admit they blew the freakin call?
 
Hard to argue against 9-4 here:


6uljt4.jpg
 
Hard to argue against 9-4 here:


6uljt4.jpg
Yes that is the rule but I wish they would amend it to something where the tackler has to take one extra step after making contact with the qb and then driving the qb to the ground.

Logan Lee contacted the qb and tackled him in one motion so it is very hard for any person in that situation to be able to always keep from not landing on the qb. And the qb had the ball when he first hit him.

I would like the rule to be like it used to where the tackler has to take strides and carry/push the qb and then slam them for it to be roughing
 
Yes that is the rule but I wish they would amend it to something where the tackler has to take one extra step after making contact with the qb and then driving the qb to the ground.

Logan Lee contacted the qb and tackled him in one motion so it is very hard for any person in that situation to be able to always keep from not landing on the qb. And the qb had the ball when he first hit him.

I would like the rule to be like it used to where the tackler has to take strides and carry/push the qb and then slam them for it to be roughing
Exactly, how are you to expect a 250+ pound person to immediately levitate upon contact and stop any momentum? Especially with a QB falling away as he throws. There are some obvious late hits but when first contact is made as he throws I don't know what you expect the defender to do.
 
Yes that is the rule but I wish they would amend it to something where the tackler has to take one extra step after making contact with the qb and then driving the qb to the ground.

Logan Lee contacted the qb and tackled him in one motion so it is very hard for any person in that situation to be able to always keep from not landing on the qb. And the qb had the ball when he first hit him.

I would like the rule to be like it used to where the tackler has to take strides and carry/push the qb and then slam them for it to be roughing

I don’t necessarily disagree, but due to the QB being in a vulnerable position, they have to be protected. Similar to a defenseless receiver.

You shouldn’t be able to tee off on them just because you can.
 
I don’t necessarily disagree, but due to the QB being in a vulnerable position, they have to be protected. Similar to a defenseless receiver.

You shouldn’t be able to tee off on them just because you can.
Oh, you don't like people hitting the QB? Then protect him better. It isn't the responsibility of the defense to not hurt the opponent.
Of course you should be able to tee off on the QB just because you can. That's what football is. If the QB can't take it, he shouldn't be playing. It's a rough sport played by big, powerful men. If that's too much for some fragile QB, maybe he should practice place kicking.
 
Oh, you don't like people hitting the QB? Then protect him better. It isn't the responsibility of the defense to not hurt the opponent.
Of course you should be able to tee off on the QB just because you can. That's what football is. If the QB can't take it, he shouldn't be playing. It's a rough sport played by big, powerful men. If that's too much for some fragile QB, maybe he should practice place kicking.

Guessing you’re a fan of targeting too then? Blowing up defenseless receivers?

Maybe your place kicker suggestion. Get rid of roughing the kicker and let them get hit on FG attempts. This is football after all. I want to see big powerful men just hit the crap out of each other.
 
Yes that is the rule but I wish they would amend it to something where the tackler has to take one extra step after making contact with the qb and then driving the qb to the ground.

Logan Lee contacted the qb and tackled him in one motion so it is very hard for any person in that situation to be able to always keep from not landing on the qb. And the qb had the ball when he first hit him.

I would like the rule to be like it used to where the tackler has to take strides and carry/push the qb and then slam them for it to be roughing
Thank you
 
While I agree it is a BS rule, the real story here is the Moon Family Head Coach once again not knowing the rules.
 
The rule seems to include intent, which adds subjectivity to the referee's decision (and which I don't like)

In other words, if you get a big hit on the QB and make it SEEM like you're holding off at the end, you're OK

If you don't make it seem like you're holding off at the end, it's a PF

This seems to be parsing it pretty finely for my taste.....
 
The rule seems to include intent, which adds subjectivity to the referee's decision (and which I don't like)

In other words, if you get a big hit on the QB and make it SEEM like you're holding off at the end, you're OK

If you don't make it seem like you're holding off at the end, it's a PF

This seems to be parsing it pretty finely for my taste.....
Me too, although I will say Iowa is probably the most clean tackling team I've seen and often do a great job of hitting the QB while not completely driving him in the ground.
 
He drove the QB into the ground after the pass, which is in fact against the rules.

We're lucky it wasn't also called on the pick-6, to be honest.
On the pick six he was actually off to the side of him, so no we're not lucky it wasn't called. The same could be said for the one that was called.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amahawk
Hard to argue against 9-4 here:


6uljt4.jpg
It's the correct call, it's just a stupid ****ing rule.

We're getting to the point where the rules are written as if they expect defenders to either defy the laws of momentum and motion in order to make a perfect form tackle every play, or defenders need to simply give up on plays when there's a chance they might earn a call. It's ridiculous.
 
An interesting question for thought: Was the way we drove the QB into the ground those couple of times purely accidental, or was it an intentional and unnecessary thing meant to inflict punishment/intimidation on the QB? I'm not so sure it's not the latter here. Sorry dudes, but I think it's intentional and can be avoided.

Bottom line is driving the QB into the ground is illegal, whether or not you agree with its being a rule, and we can't act aggrieved when it's called against us.

It'll be called again and I hope it doesn't negate something like a game-changing interception next time, like it almost did last night.

We need to specifically coach to stop doing it.
 
Last edited:
On the postgame radio show Dolph asked KF about this call. KF said the refs told him that the Iowa defender's eyes were up and that he tackled the QB too hard. KF then said that the NFL rules must to be creeping into the college rules.

Talk about not only a BS call but a BS explanation.

How bout the refs just admit they blew the freakin call?
It was BS!
 
It's the correct call, it's just a stupid ****ing rule.

We're getting to the point where the rules are written as if they expect defenders to either defy the laws of momentum and motion in order to make a perfect form tackle every play, or defenders need to simply give up on plays when there's a chance they might earn a call. It's ridiculous.

I disagree....later in game you saw the Iowa DTs/DEs lay off and not and directly on the QB. The QBs in college football are not paid athletes like our $7 million coach. Protect these athetes and maybe less money for coaches and more money for ex-athletes that have their bodies broken down....i.e. Greenwood, Sash,...many others.
 
On the postgame radio show Dolph asked KF about this call. KF said the refs told him that the Iowa defender's eyes were up and that he tackled the QB too hard. KF then said that the NFL rules must to be creeping into the college rules.

Talk about not only a BS call but a BS explanation.

How bout the refs just admit they blew the freakin call?
I'd learn the rule before posting. Iowa got away with a couple of these. Hitting the QB was totally fine all night, it's the driving into the ground with you body weight that's the no no.
 
I watched the B10 announcers talk about Rutger's needing better QB play. I'm sorry, but the dude was getting the crap beat out of him and if this was a prize fight he looks like Joe Frazier after the Thrilla in Manilla after that game. Simon kept standing in there and threw some great balls...the pick 6 wasn't a bad pass, we just have a freak in DeJean. The other Merrieweather pick was because he didn't think Merrieweather was going to be there. Kaevon saw his guy block down and so he went football hunting.

If I'm Schiano, I'm thinking the kid can play if we protect him.
 
I don’t necessarily disagree, but due to the QB being in a vulnerable position, they have to be protected. Similar to a defenseless receiver.
They played football a helluva long time without that being the case. Most QBs survived, I'm told. Nobody wants unnecessary roughness or injuries to occur, but it's easy to write a rule. What's difficult, as others have noted, is for those rules to reflect reality. If that roughing the passer call is against the rules as written, the rules are simply wrong because they do not take into account the impossibility of the defender doing anything other than what the Iowa player did. Plain and simple. Once again we see how rare "common" sense is.
 
I disagree....later in game you saw the Iowa DTs/DEs lay off and not and directly on the QB. The QBs in college football are not paid athletes like our $7 million coach. Protect these athetes and maybe less money for coaches and more money for ex-athletes that have their bodies broken down....i.e. Greenwood, Sash,...many others.
No they didn't, and they shouldn't.

Again these rules are horribly written because in practice they lay all of the blame at the defenders feet and ask them to do completely unrealistic things in the name of "safety" (which targeting and roughing the passer rules have demonstrably done zilch to promote).

Your second point makes absolutely zero sense considering the coach's contract has absolutely nothing to do with rule changes and interpretation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F5n5
ADVERTISEMENT