There are 153 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Kap Declared a Runner on a Play he Passed

Originally posted by sacniner:
From what I recall of the play, seems like the right call. Unless someone can put up a GIF. For all intents and purposes, he seemed like a runner. He was running to the LOS, not in a passing stance. Defenses are already at a disadvantage, to not let them hit a QB running in that situation is tough. I just wish it was called consistently. And there is gray area for the ref which is always a bad thing. Although, on that particular play, he seemed as if he was a runner at that point. Doesn't mean he can't still put up a quick, short pass.

He absolutely looked like a runner until he passed the ball, but my contention is that is one cannot simultaneously be a runner and a passer (to me that is contradictory). Since it wasn't a bang bang play, meaning the defender chose to hit him well after he no longer posed a threat, I think he should have been protected as a passer.
Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
Originally posted by socalniner:
Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
ok..... so what is it when the QB spins into a headbutt...............

what's f**ked up is Kap did the same thing against the falcons but didn't get a call...

yeah. what i was thinking EXACTLY.


Right. Kap doesn't get the call on the exact same play in the exact same situation. The protection is for other quarterbacks, but not Kap.
Originally posted by AmpLee:
Originally posted by sacniner:
From what I recall of the play, seems like the right call. Unless someone can put up a GIF. For all intents and purposes, he seemed like a runner. He was running to the LOS, not in a passing stance. Defenses are already at a disadvantage, to not let them hit a QB running in that situation is tough. I just wish it was called consistently. And there is gray area for the ref which is always a bad thing. Although, on that particular play, he seemed as if he was a runner at that point. Doesn't mean he can't still put up a quick, short pass.

He absolutely looked like a runner until he passed the ball, but my contention is that is one cannot simultaneously be a runner and a passer (to me that is contradictory). Since it wasn't a bang bang play, meaning the defender chose to hit him well after he no longer posed a threat, I think he should have been protected as a passer.

I see what you're saying, although, you also said he absolutely looked like a runner. Therefore, even in your estimation, he was simultaneously a runner and passer. Because even though he looked like a runner he was able to get off a pass. I think that is fair, but again, it just sucks because there will be and have been plenty of other calls where the refs are super inconsistent. Case in point, the Skuta penalty (BS) on Cam. Same s**t happened to Kap, but no flag.
Originally posted by AmpLee:
This is assuming it was bang bang. Again, this was well after the pass. The defender had every opportunity to not hit Kap, but he chose to (as in "the QB doesn't have the ball but I'm going to lay him out anyway"). I think people need to see the replay.

So, my initial question is - are you sure the refs saw it? I mean, he's out of the pocket and then throws the ball, so right there the play is moving away from him. The back judge, who focuses on the pocket, isn't in good position to see it. And the hit is so late, it's conceivable that none of the other refs were still focusing on Kap when it happened. Refs miss calls all the time.

What you really seem to have issue with is Aikman's analysis. But Aikman isn't an expert on the NFL rules - the guy is broadcasting for Fox because he's a good looking, HOF player that played for "America's Team" - you think he got the job because of his analytical capabilities?
Originally posted by midrdan:
So, my initial question is - are you sure the refs saw it? I mean, he's out of the pocket and then throws the ball, so right there the play is moving away from him. The back judge, who focuses on the pocket, isn't in good position to see it. And the hit is so late, it's conceivable that none of the other refs were still focusing on Kap when it happened. Refs miss calls all the time.

What you really seem to have issue with is Aikman's analysis. But Aikman isn't an expert on the NFL rules - the guy is broadcasting for Fox because he's a good looking, HOF player that played for "America's Team" - you think he got the job because of his analytical capabilities?


"Pretty boy Troy" (his old nickname), never had to take hits until later in his career because he played behind the best O-line ever assembled. He never had the ability nor desire to run out of the pocket, or scramble for anything. He is the worst possible source for ideas pertaining to quarterback hits.
  • Wodwo
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,104
Ok, question related to this question.

How do they determine what is and isn't a sack? Does it matter if the QB is a runner? IIRC, it doesn't.

Why is this? Shouldn't it just be a tackle for a loss?

What about Wildcat plays or other direct snaps to players not listed as a QB? Those are counted as tackles for loss, aren't they?

I ask because anyone on offense (except non-eligible lineman) is allowed to make a forward pass behind the LOS, right? Are they afforded the same protections as QBs? They are equally defenseless when attempting a pass, no?

What about laterals and backwards passes? Is a QB protected during those, but others aren't?

I swear, not even a lawyer or judge could determine the meaning or intent of the rules as written. I'll see if I can get my uncle (Superior Court Judge, former starting QB for West Virginia) to make heads or tails of it.

Since I'm feeling lazy, anybody want to link me to the NFL rulebook and the section(s) relevant to the question?
Here is the NFL rule:

Section 7
Article 3
Paragraph (4)
"If a player is a quarterback, and they are in the pocket, and they are not named "Colin Kaepernick", then the official can arbitrarily throw a flag when the quarterback is hit hard."