Question penalty on Ahmad Brooks all you want, but not Drew Brees' toughness

SaintSproles · 11-20-2013, 06:05 PM

Actually the part of this rule I don't like is the fact that Brooks still gets credit for a sack (why?) and the ball is moved from the spot of the foul. In this case, it became essentially only a 5 yard penalty from the 35 (spot of foul was the 45 and got moved to the 30), vs a 15 yarder which would have put it at the 20.

That needs to change.

Danno · 11-20-2013, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by SaintSproles

Actually the part of this rule I don't like is the fact that Brooks still gets credit for a sack (why?) and the ball is moved from the spot of the foul. In this case, it became essentially only a 5 yard penalty from the 35 (spot of foul was the 45 and got moved to the 30), vs a 15 yarder which would have put it at the 20.

That needs to change.

My guess is that if he hadn't hit Drew high, it would have been a sack.

But thats a pretty interesting take.

If someone commits PI in the endzone, why isn't the receiver credited with a TD?

SaintSproles · 11-20-2013, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

My guess is that if he hadn't hit Drew high, it would have been a sack.

But thats a pretty interesting take.

If someone commits PI in the endzone, why isn't the receiver credited with a TD?

Oh it's a sack no doubt if there is no penalty on the play

I just don't think a player who just committed a personal foul on a QB deserves to get credit for the sack.

Danno · 11-20-2013, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by SaintSproles

Oh it's a sack no doubt if there is no penalty on the play

I just don't think a player who just committed a personal foul on a QB deserves to get credit for the sack.

Thats interesting. I'm debating with myself if I agree with you or not. Its currently 50-50.

Why credit someone with the sack if their play resulted in a 1st down?

burningmetal · 11-20-2013, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

My guess is that if he hadn't hit Drew high, it would have been a sack.

But thats a pretty interesting take.

If someone commits PI in the endzone, why isn't the receiver credited with a TD?

That's why I've always been at odds with holding in the endzone being called a safety. If that's the case then touchdowns SHOULD be awarded for interference in the endzone.

I really don't want penalties to result in automatic points, but it's the inconsistency in the rules that just make no sense.

skymike · 11-21-2013, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by burningmetal

...it's the inconsistency in the rules that just make no sense.

yeah, like when you can "break the plane" over the goal line. But you have to actually step on the out of bounds to be out of bounds,
if you catch the ball with your feet inbounds and the ball out of bounds its in
bounds. Why dont you break the plane of out of bounds? And why cant you
just step your foot into the goalline? like its "base?"

11-20-2013, 06:05 PM	#1
SaintSproles Site Donor Drew Brees GOAT Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 342 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Question penalty on Ahmad Brooks all you want, but not Drew Brees' toughness Actually the part of this rule I don't like is the fact that Brooks still gets credit for a sack (why?) and the ball is moved from the spot of the foul. In this case, it became essentially only a 5 yard penalty from the 35 (spot of foul was the 45 and got moved to the 30), vs a 15 yarder which would have put it at the 20. That needs to change.

11-20-2013, 06:12 PM	#2
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,758	Re: Question penalty on Ahmad Brooks all you want, but not Drew Brees' toughness Originally Posted by SaintSproles Actually the part of this rule I don't like is the fact that Brooks still gets credit for a sack (why?) and the ball is moved from the spot of the foul. In this case, it became essentially only a 5 yard penalty from the 35 (spot of foul was the 45 and got moved to the 30), vs a 15 yarder which would have put it at the 20. That needs to change. My guess is that if he hadn't hit Drew high, it would have been a sack. But thats a pretty interesting take. If someone commits PI in the endzone, why isn't the receiver credited with a TD?

11-20-2013, 06:16 PM	#3
SaintSproles Site Donor Drew Brees GOAT Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 342 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Question penalty on Ahmad Brooks all you want, but not Drew Brees' toughness Originally Posted by Danno My guess is that if he hadn't hit Drew high, it would have been a sack. But thats a pretty interesting take. If someone commits PI in the endzone, why isn't the receiver credited with a TD? Oh it's a sack no doubt if there is no penalty on the play I just don't think a player who just committed a personal foul on a QB deserves to get credit for the sack.

11-20-2013, 06:18 PM	#4
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,758	Re: Question penalty on Ahmad Brooks all you want, but not Drew Brees' toughness Originally Posted by SaintSproles Oh it's a sack no doubt if there is no penalty on the play I just don't think a player who just committed a personal foul on a QB deserves to get credit for the sack. Thats interesting. I'm debating with myself if I agree with you or not. Its currently 50-50. Why credit someone with the sack if their play resulted in a 1st down?

11-20-2013, 08:32 PM	#5
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Question penalty on Ahmad Brooks all you want, but not Drew Brees' toughness Originally Posted by Danno My guess is that if he hadn't hit Drew high, it would have been a sack. But thats a pretty interesting take. If someone commits PI in the endzone, why isn't the receiver credited with a TD? That's why I've always been at odds with holding in the endzone being called a safety. If that's the case then touchdowns SHOULD be awarded for interference in the endzone. I really don't want penalties to result in automatic points, but it's the inconsistency in the rules that just make no sense.

11-21-2013, 06:41 AM	#6
skymike E. Side Cholo Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Barrio, H-town Posts: 6,089	Re: Question penalty on Ahmad Brooks all you want, but not Drew Brees' toughness Originally Posted by burningmetal ...it's the inconsistency in the rules that just make no sense. yeah, like when you can "break the plane" over the goal line. But you have to actually step on the out of bounds to be out of bounds, if you catch the ball with your feet inbounds and the ball out of bounds its in bounds. Why dont you break the plane of out of bounds? And why cant you just step your foot into the goalline? like its "base?"

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/62136-question-penalty-ahmad-brooks-all-you-want-but-not-drew-brees-toughness.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
The Latest New Orleans Saints News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	11-20-2013 05:44 PM	3
Question penalty on Ahmad Brooks all you want, but not Drew Brees' toughness	This thread	Refback	11-20-2013 05:32 PM	20