The Emergency 3rd QB Rule and Roster Implications
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
So the best thing to do right now is hope that Corral can serve as the backup, since he's already on the 53-man squad. And then have Zappe as the emergency QB.
This whole rule is so stupid though. Just have a 53 man roster. Suit up 46 each week. If a team wants to have 3 QBs among those 46 players, that's up to them. If they only want 2 QBs among those 46 players, that's up to them as well, but if they lose both and get burned for only having two QBs active, that's their fault.
San Fran played the "woe is us" card last year and it got the rule changed. But that was all on San Fran. They could have activated another QB if they wanted to. They chose not to, and instead chose to use that 46th spot on a player at a different position.
This whole rule is so stupid though. Just have a 53 man roster. Suit up 46 each week. If a team wants to have 3 QBs among those 46 players, that's up to them. If they only want 2 QBs among those 46 players, that's up to them as well, but if they lose both and get burned for only having two QBs active, that's their fault.
San Fran played the "woe is us" card last year and it got the rule changed. But that was all on San Fran. They could have activated another QB if they wanted to. They chose not to, and instead chose to use that 46th spot on a player at a different position.
IMO the whole point of signing Corral was to evaluate him in the three weeks that they could elevate Zappe to see if he was better than Zappe. Can't really do that now.
Eh. The FAQ released by the league doesn’t really offer an unanticipated interpretation of the bylaw itself, which it quite clear on the roster mechanics, so your theory necessarily assumes that Bill isn’t familiar with the bylaw.
‘One hour and 30 minutes prior to kickoff, each club is required to establish its Active List for the game by notifying the Referee of the players on its Inactive List for that game.
Each club may also designate one emergency third quarterback from its 53- player Active/Inactive List (i.e., elevated players are not eligible for designation) who will be eligible to be activated during the game, if the club’s first two quarterbacks on its game day Active List are not able to participate in the game due to injury or disqualification (activation cannot be a result of a head coach’s in-game decision to remove a player from the game due to performance or conduct). If either of the injured quarterbacks is cleared by the medical staff to return to play, the emergency third quarterback must be removed from the game and is not permitted to continue to play quarterback or any other position, but is eligible to return to the game to play quarterback if another emergency third quarterback situation arises.
A club is not eligible to use these procedures if it carries three quarterbacks on its game day Active List [47- or 48-players in 2023]. …
Effect: Permits each club to designate an emergency quarterback who can be activated from its Inactive List if the two quarterbacks on the club’s Active List are injured or disqualified and unable to participate in the game.’
He would have to be added to the 53, they can't leave him on the PS if I'm reading the rule correctly.
People seem to be trying to find some sort of roster manipulation angle with the rule but it's basically just you can designate one of your gameday inactives as the emergency QB in case the two active guys go down.
I interpreted it to mean that #1 and #2 need to be on the 53. But PS callups are eligible. But it would be par for the course for the NFL to make a rule so confusing that nobody alive can figure it out.
Seems very straightforward in the clarification: all QBs on the active 46, including emergency guy, must be on the 53.
My interpretation has been that the QB's need to be on the 53. You can carry 3 and on gameday deactivate one (thus freeing an active spot for another player) but tag the inactive QB as the emergency QB and then he can enter if something happens to the first 2 QB's. It's not an extra roster spot where you can stash a QB on the PS and use them as the emergency QB thereby essentally freeing up a spot on the 53.
This QB3 stuff (which I think I understand) reminds me to ask what exactly is the point of 53 man rosters but only being able to activate 46. What is the point of that discrepancy. It doesn’t seem like it should exist.
All this crap is the result of collective bargaining--the owners want smaller rosters so they pay fewer guys (and perhaps they want slightly fewer players for the televised product), the players want somewhat bigger rosters, so they come up with this kind of stuff. There's no particular principle or logic involved.
Last edited:
It's similar in hockey. NHL rosters have 23 players, but only 20 players can dress for games.
Correct. But, predictably, the NFL makes the rule useless for many teams by not allowing it if QBs are elevated.
Let's say the Pats add Zappe to the 53 (not just elevate him) for Sunday. Then they designate Corral as the emergency QB and he does not count as one of the 46 active players. Based on what the rule is now, if Jones gets hurt, Zappe plays. Corral cannot play. If Jones and Zappe both get hurt, only then can Corral play. Let's say it is late in the game, Jones went out in the second quarter, and in the 4th Zappe gets his bell rung and is sent to the blue tent. Now, and only now, can Corral come in. And, if Zappe gets cleared to return, he must reenter the game immediately and Corral cannot play. SO you could have Corral in the middle of a late game TD drive, marching the Pats from their 20 to the Red Zone, a timeout is called, and Zappe is cleared, and he has to go back in.
That's not a crazy rule, if you view is as existing solely to make sure that a team has an emergency QB available for injury situations.
But if the use of 3rd QB is going to be that limited, then why make the rule available only to teams that aren't elevating a QB? Makes no sense to me.
Last time, the 3rd QB rule provided more opportunties to use the 3rd QB than only when both 1st and 2nd were hurt, and teams did try to find ways to game it. I don't see how that is an issue with the new rule.
Yeah, requiring the 3rd QB to be on the 53 doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are more teams now going to carry 3 on the roster? I believe only 12 teams carried 3 last year. Not sure how many are or will this year. A quick spot check suggests the Eagles, Dolphins and 49ers appear to currently have 3. Patriots, Bills, Chiefs and Jets look to have only 2 at the moment.
It comes up rarely and is meant as an "emergency" that I think a practice squad elevation should be fine. As is I can see playoff teams doing some roster maneuvering if they only have 2 QBs on the 53.
It comes up rarely and is meant as an "emergency" that I think a practice squad elevation should be fine. As is I can see playoff teams doing some roster maneuvering if they only have 2 QBs on the 53.
I agree that they should let the PS QB be the 3rd guy but I think the scenario outlined above would never happen. I don't think the trainer/doctor/neurologist is going to report that Zappe is cleared to the league/game officials and thus force him back in. That's a recipe for more Tua-esque disasters.
I think it's essentially a coaching decision. If the Zappe is cleared and Bill wants to put him back in, he does so at his discretion and when it happens Corral can't return. They aren't going to pause the game and demand Zappe go in because the doctor's said it was OK.
It's an overwrought rule that has an internal logic but could be addressed much more simply. Basically the NFL rulebook in a nutshell.
I agree that the officials won’t get involved, but you can be sure the league will look into any report that a team didn’t reinsert the second string QB once cleared of anything other than a concussion.
They should’ve written the rule to just allow a third QB to count as an extra player on the active game roster and restricted the player’s participation to QB (ie, must be the player receiving the snap).
This might be dumb but there’s nothing prohibiting Cunningham from being on the game day roster as a WR and playing QB if Jones and Zappe get hurt, right?
That's correct. He'd have to be among the 46 active players, but anyone on the active 46 man roster can get behind center and receive the snap.
Which also would be what would happen if you didn't have an emergency 3rd QB (cf. the 49ers in the playoffs last year). But in this case, someone being under center to receive a snap who is on the 46 (not the emergency QB) doesn't trigger any of the emergency QB rules. So things like Wildcat will still be in play.
Right. The whole emergency QB rule is monumentally stupid. Just suit up 46 guys, at whatever position you want, and whoever is available can take snaps from center. If you choose to only have 2 actual QBs out of that 46, and both go down, that's your problem.
Why the NFL has to make this more complicated, I'll never know. This is a solution seeking a problem to solve.
To be fair, the NFL did have the emergency QB rule for a number of years, and it seemed to work OK. At the same time, IIRC, the number of active players was limited to 45 and there was no such thing as temporary elevation from the practice squad. With 46 actives and the concussion protocols, I tend to agree the rule is a needless complication. The easiest would be to allow teams to dress their entire 53-man squad, especially with the much relaxed IR rules these days (a welcome change, btw).
Well, I seem to recall a recent important game where a team lost its 2 rostered QBs... It seems like they are reacting to that but then worried about potential abuses of the rule, so they add stupid provisions.
I think they could let any team that includes 2 QBs in its 46 have an emergency QB who can only play of both of the 2 are hurt. No need to make it any more complicated than that.
Yes but that was San Francisco's fault. Years ago they had this emergency QB rule. Then they got rid of it an allowed teams to activate 46 - instead of the normal 45 - players each game. Teams were then free to use that 46th slot however they wanted. If you wanted a 3rd QB? Great, go for it. If you wanted a 10th OL? Awesome, have at it. Up to you. If you're worried about the health of your QBs, then it's on you as an organization to activate more QBs for that game. And hey, you've got an extra roster spot to do just that if you want!
That SF decided to not protect the QB position by adding another QB was 100% on them. And they got burned. That's no reason to change the rule. Teams just have to be smarter in how they manage their rosters is all.
Random thought/memory, but wasn't the opening day game against the Jets in 1999 when Testaverde blew out his achilles affected by the rule (or at least how Bill Parcells coached it). In that Tom Tupa ended up QBing until the 4th quarter, until Rick Mirer took over. (This article indicates that it was because if Mirer played before the 4th quarter, they'd lose Tom Tupa as the emergency QB and punter. Not sure how that worked out, or they meant that Mirer was the emergency QB, and Tupa was listed as the backup QB?) (also damn, that was 24 years ago).
Not the first time something affects the outcome of a playoff game and the rules get changed.
They made PI reviewable because the Saints had a blown call go agianst them.
They changed OT rules because the Pats scored without the other team touching the ball.
They eventually rewrote the whole Tuck Rule thing.
In this case, the Niners had two healthy QBs on the roster and both got hurt (the bacup was worthless but that's another story). And yeah, I remember the whole emergency QB thing, where he couldn't come in unless bith QBs were actually hurt (ineffective did not count for him to come in). The league may have very well told the 9ers to pound sand and have a QB in the 46th spot next time.
My only thing about this is that any QB that is a 3rd stringer behind Brock Purdy and Johnson would not have given the Niners a chance against the Eagles Defense.
I mean, that's fair, too. Handing out a basically negligible advantage to team that chooses to carry 3 QBs on the 53 just seems weird.
Has a team that had to play a third QB ever actually won? I assume it's possible if they have a big lead, in which case you could probably just stick a WR back there who you've trained to take snaps and not shit himself.
The NHL's rule is the best. Have a journeyman in every building who can play for either team in a pinch.
The NHL's rule is the best. Have a journeyman in every building who can play for either team in a pinch.
I don’t think it’s THAT rare. Just citing the Patriots, Jacoby Brissett finished a win and won the subsequent start in 2016 while Brady was suspended and Jimmy G was hurt. Perhaps Steve Bono hawked a win or two while with the late 80s Niners, too.
That was Parcells' idea. At the time, the emergency QB couldn't take any snaps until the 4th quarter or else, the other 2 QB's couldn't come back in. Tupa was fine for taking a snap to finish a series, but you didn't want him going multiple snaps.
The 1986 Niners had 3 different QBs throw for 300+ years, including someone called "Mike Moroski." Of course, this team went on to get beat 49-3 in their first and only playoff game.
Maybe rotating them helped their longevity ?
And I think the 49ers have played in more than one playoff game...
Last edited: