Hairyducked Idiot wrote: JudasIscariotTheBird wrote:
Hairyducked Idiot wrote: The QB was looking the other way and he drove into him, lifted him off the ground, then lifted his own feet to drive him into the ground with his weight.
What direction the QB is looking DOES NOT MATTER. He didn't lift him off the ground. He ran into him and he tackled him. It was a sack. If this is no longer a sack, then you simply aren't allowed to tackle the QB anymore. If that is what we want the rules to be...ok, fine. Just actually make that the rules. Two-hand touch, whatever. Just make the rules clear.
The rule is simply "defenseless." Looking the other way is defenseless.
I specifically outlined a way to sack the quarterback that doesn't involve a violent hit when he's not looking.
You are seriously pretending it makes sense for him to come to nearly a full stop and ...I'm confused. You accused him of picking him up off his feet as if that was a thing you can't do, but you advocate gently picking up a 6'2 220 pound guy (while 320 pound guys are allowed to crush you on your path to said large guy) and gently placing him on the ground for a sack? The rule which was cited by the NFL has nothing to do with a defenseless player, btw.
You MIGHT even be right that this is indeed roughing the passer because Clay landed on Smith when he tackled him, but THAT IS WHAT A TACKLE IS!!! The percentage of tackles where you land on the guy you tackle has to be around 50% right? Clay didn't make an attempt to lift and drive him into the ground gratutously. He didn't arc higher into the air to droive his weight into him. He simply tackled him. He hit him hard, sure, but it was a pure tackle. The rules are horrifically dumb, and if they keep enforcing it in this way...well, I serious looked to see if there were any Austrailian Rules football teams that wear green and yellow so I could gently ween myself onto just watching the Cubs and speed chess matches, but there weren't any.