NFL Playoffs - Divisional Round game thread

What ONE team are you certain survives the Divisional Round?

  • Bengals

    Votes: 13 6.6%
  • Titans

    Votes: 20 10.2%
  • Chiefs

    Votes: 22 11.2%
  • Bills

    Votes: 5 2.5%
  • 49ers

    Votes: 10 5.1%
  • Packers

    Votes: 75 38.1%
  • Rams

    Votes: 5 2.5%
  • Buccaneers

    Votes: 47 23.9%

  • Total voters
    197
  • Poll closed .

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
Perhaps when that DL picked up Jim McMahon and body-slammed him to the turf after the ball was long gone? That incident might have been after the play was over.

Video
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
Not if he was throwing a screen pass, or throwing the ball into the ground to avoid a sack. QBs do that all the time and occasionally they still get hit late. I've never seen it on fourth down though, but in the history of the NFL it has to have happened before. I'm just asking CFB what would happen in that scenario. I suspect they'd treat the QB *very* differently than the WR. Like if Brady tried to dump a screen to Fournette on that play and the ball hit the ground a split second before Brady got absolutely lit up by Aaron Donald, and they called roughing, I'm 100% convinced the Bucs would retain possession there. Because....QB.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but it would be enforced as a live-ball foul.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but it would be enforced as a live-ball foul.
Ok so we agree that even though the ball would have hit the ground and the play would have been over, and possession would have changed hands, the ball still would have gone back to the Bucs because it's the QB involved instead of the WR.

So.....WHY? What's the difference? I understand wanting to protect the QB. But they're also trying to protect defenseless receivers from those kinds of hits too. And in both cases there's a 15-yard penalty being assessed. But why would the Bucs keep the ball if the hit was on Brady rather than Evans? What's the logic behind that?
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
The NFL is the absolute worst when it comes to rules. I get that the pro leagues are all struggling in a 4K TV era to balance accuracy with pace of play. But after years of not having any clue what constitutes a catch, the ongoing inconsistency over pass interference (in an era where passing is king), and now this eye-in-the-sky/“Let’s go to NY” thing which should be good but isn’t, NFL officiating has become this X-factor in every game and it sucks.

Officiating for political or PR instead of competitive reasons will always be a disaster. Which is partly why when there is any discussion of changing rules to improve the quality of the game I fully expect it will be porked in the execution.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
So.....WHY? What's the difference? I understand wanting to protect the QB. But they're also trying to protect defenseless receivers from those kinds of hits too. And in both cases there's a 15-yard penalty being assessed. But why would the Bucs keep the ball if the hit was on Brady rather than Evans? What's the logic behind that?
Probably nobody thought it would be a potential problem. A close examination of definitions may help shine some light. A defenseless receiver is one that is attempting to catch a pass. If the pass hits the ground it's a dead ball, thus the player is no longer attempting to catch it and is no longer defenseless. Strictly from a rules perspective, any illegal contact after that point would be a late hit after the play. This is where over-announcing can get a Referee in trouble. If you just announce "After the play, Personal Foul, Unnecessary Roughness, #XX, Defense. The offense failed to make the line-to-gain and team XX will keep the ball. First down, team XX.". Then you leave no room for argument.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,844
Probably nobody thought it would be a potential problem. A close examination of definitions may help shine some light. A defenseless receiver is one that is attempting to catch a pass. If the pass hits the ground it's a dead ball, thus the player is no longer attempting to catch it and is no longer defenseless.
That makes sense in the sense that the ball is dead, but makes no sense in that a receiver could still be in the position he is because he attempted to catch the ball. He doesn't immediately become able to defend himself when the ball hits the ground.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Probably nobody thought it would be a potential problem. A close examination of definitions may help shine some light. A defenseless receiver is one that is attempting to catch a pass. If the pass hits the ground it's a dead ball, thus the player is no longer attempting to catch it and is no longer defenseless. Strictly from a rules perspective, any illegal contact after that point would be a late hit after the play. This is where over-announcing can get a Referee in trouble. If you just announce "After the play, Personal Foul, Unnecessary Roughness, #XX, Defense. The offense failed to make the line-to-gain and team XX will keep the ball. First down, team XX.". Then you leave no room for argument.
I get that. But if the late hit happens to the QB, they give the ball back to the offense. Makes no sense.