Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
110%er [5045]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4138
Joined: 6/28/17
|
Xavier Thomas Sack
Aug 30, 2019, 2:02 PM
|
|
Any reason why his sack in the first quarter didn't count in the stat sheet? ESPN shows him having 0 sacks on the game.
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4144]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3983
Joined: 1/22/03
|
Re: Xavier Thomas Sack
Aug 30, 2019, 2:09 PM
|
|
I thought he had 2. No doubt he had 1.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5045]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4138
Joined: 6/28/17
|
Re: Xavier Thomas Sack
Aug 30, 2019, 2:18 PM
|
|
Yep at least 1.5 now that I saw him and Davis just got a sack together too. Let's see if more pop up.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22353
Joined: 4/24/04
|
It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a
Aug 30, 2019, 2:28 PM
|
|
drop back.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22353
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Yeah, i just rewatched the play. That's a TFL, not a sack***
Aug 30, 2019, 2:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5045]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4138
Joined: 6/28/17
|
Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a
Aug 30, 2019, 3:04 PM
[ in reply to It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a ] |
|
How does it adjust when a QB is tackled behind the line of scrimmage? That's the definition of a sack quite literally. In the definition it even reads "if he's unable to find a back to hand the ball off" which is again quite literally what happened. My question is legitimate I'm not trying to argue I just don't understand how it's not a sack.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22353
Joined: 4/24/04
|
I don't know why they score it that way
Aug 30, 2019, 3:16 PM
|
|
It's definitely subjective at times.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4144]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3983
Joined: 1/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3034]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4257
Joined: 8/17/99
|
Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a
Aug 30, 2019, 3:35 PM
|
|
A RB can still throw a pass while behind the LOS too. Should those TFLs count as sacks?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5045]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4138
Joined: 6/28/17
|
Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a
Aug 30, 2019, 3:43 PM
|
|
So I see you're attempting to make a point. But the definition of a sack states the quarterback behind the LOS not "any player that can throw a forward pass"..
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6692]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11164
Joined: 10/14/07
|
Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a
Aug 30, 2019, 3:46 PM
|
|
I'm pretty sure it's due to the option style. I'm assuming it's been that way for a while against GT the past 10 years.
I'm assuming it has to do with the QB actively looking for a pass, not on a designed read option, or triple option type of play.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3034]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4257
Joined: 8/17/99
|
Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a
Aug 30, 2019, 9:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a ] |
|
It also states that it must be obvious that the quarterback either intends to throw a forward pass or is still in the pocket without a clear, discernible objective for the play.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4308
Joined: 8/30/08
|
Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a
Aug 30, 2019, 9:52 PM
|
|
I know what was obvious. XT was our most disruptive DE. Head scratcher on the separation discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4746]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4802
Joined: 1/8/19
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3357
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a
Aug 30, 2019, 4:05 PM
[ in reply to Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a ] |
|
It's not the authoritative final answer but Wikepedia says
To be considered a sack the quarterback must intend to throw a forward pass. If the play is designed for the quarterback to rush (run) the ball, any loss is subtracted from the quarterback's rushing total (and the play is ruled a tackle for loss as opposed to a sack). If the quarterback's intent is not obvious, statisticians use certain criteria, such as the offensive line blocking scheme, to decide. Unique situations where a loss reduces a quarterback's rushing total (not a sack) are "kneel downs" (used to run time off the game clock).
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3357
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a
Aug 30, 2019, 4:13 PM
[ in reply to Re: It was a read option, right? That's a running play, not a ] |
|
It seems pretty clear that the QB (or other back eligible to make a forward pass) exhibits an intent to pass, then it's probably a sack. Determining intent to pass is part of the statisticians job.
From the NCAA FOOTBALL STATISTICIANS’ MANUAL Including Special Interpretations and Approved Rulings Covering Unusual Situations
PASS SACKS: If the defensive team is credited with the sack of a player who is dropping back in an apparent attempt to pass, the same principles outlined above again apply. A player credited with a solo pass sack on the play is also credited with a solo tackle and a solo tackle for loss. In the case of two players getting credit for an assisted pass sack (with no player being credited for a solo pass sack), each player would also be credited with an assisted tackle and an assisted tackle for loss. If a potential passer fumbles the ball before contact by the defense or receives a wild pass from center, no pass sack is credited to any individual player or team if the off ensive player simply falls on the ball. If the player regains possession of the ball and continues to attempt to make a passing play, credit the sack and tackle to the individual player(s). Lost yardage on pass sacks is given entirely to the player with a solo pass sack, and lost yardage is split equally between two players with assisted pass sacks. If the yardage lost is an odd number, then the yardage split shall be at the discretion of the offi cial game statistician. In determining pass sacks, take into consideration a case in which a quarterback or another off ensive player makes an apparent attempt to pass while being chased and goes out of bounds behind the line of scrimmage. In that instance, give the solo pass sack, solo tackle and solo tackle for loss to the primary chasing player who, in the opinion of the offi cial game statistician, caused the passer to go out of bounds. For plays that end either on the line of scrimmage or beyond, there is no pass sack credited but rather it is considered a rushing play. There can be no pass sack without loss of yardage. Clarifi cation: When a quarterback retreats to pass, but is pressured into bringing the ball down, is forced to scramble and is tackled before gaining the line of scrimmage, the defensive player who exerted the pressure is credited with a solo pass sack, a solo tackle, and a solo tackle for loss for all the yards lost. This play is akin to a defensive player forcing a quarterback who is attempting to pass out of bounds before his gaining the line of scrimmage.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3357
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: Xavier Thomas Sack
Aug 30, 2019, 4:01 PM
|
|
Given that the Tech QB was not actually going to pass the ball very often, I'd expect that the QB runs were marked as TFL rather than sacks.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
|
|