Richard Sherman's hit on Walt Powell was a penalty

The last play of the first half of last night's travesty has been covered ad nausem. What has seen a less accurate discussion is the true last play of the game, the Bills' incomplete pass on 4^th and Goal.

Bills fans have inevitably seen the play. As Tyrod Taylor rolls to his left, Seattle cornerback Richard Sherman blows up / knocks down / crushes Bills WR Walt Powell just over the goal line on the right sideline, just feet in front of the referee. The immediate reaction from my friends, myself, and social media was that it was another egregious no-call and should have been called illegal contact. Then the narrative changed, internet referees quickly pointed out that for the foul of illegal contact to occur, the quarterback needs to be in the pocket (which for argument's sake, we will say Taylor was not in the pocket). (For all NFL Rule Book citations, 2016 NFL Rule Book).

"ARTICLE 7. END OF RESTRICTIONS [under the heading of fouls against eligible receivers]. If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another player, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled) the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, or an illegal cut block, against an eligible receiver will end, and a defensive player is permitted to use his hands, arms, or body to push, pull, or ward off an offensive receiver, pursuant to Rule 12, Section 1, Article 5. If the quarterback leaves the pocket area with the ball in his possession, the restrictions on illegal contact and an illegal cut block both end, but the restriction on defensive holding remains in effect."

And this is where the discussion seems to have ended. Richard Sherman knew the rule book better than everyone else, and what appeared to be a clear penalty was in fact a loop hole that Sherman was just smart enough to know.

But, as awful as NFL rules, interpretations, and implementations of such rules have become, what Sherman did looked, smelled, and tasted like a penalty. Because it was one under NFL Rules. I know it is hard to believe but the refs just blew the call. Under two separate lines of analysis, Sherman's hit was a penalty. The first narrative was promulgated so heavily by the internet, I didn't even realize its flaw until I was almost finished writing this.

From Article 7 above: "The restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, or an illegal cut block, against an eligible receiver will end, and a defensive player is permitted to use his hands, arms, or body to push, pull, or ward off an offensive receiver, PURSUANT TO RULE 12, SECTION 1, ARTICLE 5."

It follows that these are the same restrictions that also end when the quarterback leaves the pocket. To remove from the next sentence the conditional requirement (i.e. pursuant to Rule 12, Section 1, Article 5) present in the sentence that describes the restrictions is illogical. So did Sherman's hit on Powell occur "pursuant to Rule 12, Section 1, Article 5"?

"ARTICLE 5. LEGAL USE OF HANDS OR ARMS BY DEFENSE. A defensive player may use his hands, arms, or body to push, pull, or ward off offensive players:
(a)    when he is defending himself against an obstructing opponent while attempting to reach the runner
(b)    when an opponent is obviously attempting to block him
(c)    in a personal attempt to reach a loose ball that has touched the ground during a backward pass, fumble, or kick
(d)    during a forward pass that has crossed the neutral zone and has been touched by any player

Exceptions:
(1)    An eligible receiver is considered to be an obstructing opponent only to a point five yards beyond the line of scrimmage unless the player who receives the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (including handing off the ball, pitching the ball, or moving out of the pocket). See 8-4-2-€”3 for rules applicable to Illegal Contact with an eligible receiver.
(2)    See 8-4-5 for rules applicable for an Illegal Cut Block against an eligible receiver."

I don't think so.

Exception (1) also states that Powell could only be an obstructing opponent (as he was well pass "a point five yards beyond the line of scrimmage") if Taylor had "demonstrate[d] no further intention to pass the ball (including handing off the ball, pitching the ball, or moving out of the pocket)."

The only potential argument that could then be made to defend Sherman would be that he "may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver" fully cited below.

"ARTICLE 3. ILLEGAL CONTACT BEYOND FIVE-YARD ZONE. Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender cannot initiate contact with a receiver who is attempting to evade him. A defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver."

Powell wasn't even looking at Sherman, but I'm sure someone will make the argument.

The second, different rule that makes Sherman's play a foul originates exactly one section above the supposedly guiding, Article 7 in the NFL rules.

"ARTICLE 6. DEFENSIVE HOLDING. It is defensive holding if a player grasps an eligible offensive player (or his jersey) with his hands, or extends an arm or arms to cut off or encircle him. See 12-1-6.
Penalty: For holding by the defense: Loss of five yards and automatic first down."

This definition seems to be inapplicable to Sherman's play but the definition of Defensive Holding references Rule 12, Section 1, Article 6 (bolded above), which states in relevant part:

"ARTICLE 6. DEFENSIVE HOLDING. It is a foul for defensive holding if:
(a) a defensive player tackles or holds any opponent other than a runner, except as permitted in Article 5
Penalty: For defensive holding: Loss of five yards and an automatic first down."

The foul of defensive holding is also explicitly unaffected by the quarterbacks presence in or out of the pocket ("If the quarterback leaves the pocket area with the ball in his possession, the restrictions on illegal contact and an illegal cut block both end, but the restriction on defensive holding remains in effect.").

As would make sense, Sherman's conduct could again be protected by Article 5, and again I would love to hear the argument.

"ARTICLE 5. LEGAL USE OF HANDS OR ARMS BY DEFENSE. A defensive player may use his hands, arms, or body to push, pull, or ward off offensive players:
(a)    when he is defending himself against an obstructing opponent while attempting to reach the runner
(b)     when an opponent is obviously attempting to block him
(c)    in a personal attempt to reach a loose ball that has touched the ground during a backward pass, fumble, or kick
(d)    during a forward pass that has crossed the neutral zone and has been touched by any player

Exceptions:
(1)    An eligible receiver is considered to be an obstructing opponent only to a point five yards beyond the line of scrimmage unless the player who receives the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (including handing off the ball, pitching the ball, or moving out of the pocket). See 8-4-2-€”3 for rules applicable to Illegal Contact with an eligible receiver.
(2)    See 8-4-5 for rules applicable for an Illegal Cut Block against an eligible receiver."

So the only remaining question under this analysis is the use of the word "tackles" in Rule 12, Article 6(a) above. In bizarro NFL world, was Sherman's hit (a word which is used 4 times in the NFL rules, all in the roughing the passer section) somehow different than the tackle that is a foul under the defensive holding rules.

"SECTION 35 TACKLING
Tackling is an attempt by a defensive player to hold a runner to halt his advance or bring him to the ground."

The definition of tackling leaves some clarity to be desired but it's hard to argue that Sherman's act was not a successful "attempt by a defensive player to hold a runner to halt his advance or bring his to the ground."

The use of the word runner in the tackling definition does not completely mesh with that in the Defensive Holding definition (stating that "a defensive player tackles or holds any opponent other than a runner"), so it makes sense to look for further evidence of meaning.

The only provided guidance (outside of the common sense reading of the word and context of the rules) is in that of an example of a fake punt in the Pass Interference section of the rule book. It clearly states that tackling a receiver is a penalty. "Defensive holding, such as tackling a receiver, still can be called and result in a five-yard penalty from the previous spot, if accepted. Offensive pass interference rules still apply."

If, as clearly stated in the above quote, a receiver can be tackled, then the inclusion of "a runner" in the definition of "Tackling" does not mean that solely a ball carrier can be tackled. As is common sense, anyone can be tackled on a football field, wide receivers included.

This leads to the only question that should surround the legality of the Sherman play and validity (if any at all, considering the field goal debacle and the fact that the Bills aren't even going for it on 4^th down without it) of the game's outcome, was Sherman's hit on Powell a tackle or something else?

If it's something else,” the implication is that as soon as the quarterback breaks the pocket, then defensive backs can legally do that "something else" to any potential pass catcher prior to the ball being in the air. If that "something else" is vicious enough not to be a tackle but a block, a hit, or potential career-ending injury, then it is legal under a limited definition of tackle. Boy would that be fun.