Sometimes we win

[El Macman]

Play from a game not long ago:

On a planned play in B's red zone, QB takes a shotgun snap, fakes looking for a receiver very briefly, then runs straight ahead. Just before he gets to the neutral zone, he stops, jumps and pitches the ball forward to an eligible teammate. The QB returns to the ground, and is watching to see if the pass will be caught when a defensive player grabs him by the shoulder and yanks him down to the ground. Flag flies from the R for roughing the passer. Penalty is enforced. Team A scores a couple of plays later.
During the break before the K/O, the B coach calls the R over. Conversation goes something like this:
C (mildly heated): How is that roughing the passer?
R: How is it NOT roughing the passer?
C: But he ran with the ball, and then he just pitched the ball forward.
R: Did he throw a pass?
C: Well, yeah, but...
R: Then he's a passer. And when your guy yanked him to the ground, that's roughing the passer.
C: You mean when he's running like that we're expected to know he's going to throw a pass?
R: Yep. The rule applies to a player that passes the ball - no exception for what kind of pass, or what he was doing before he threw the pass.
C: We gotta do something about that. That's a bad rule.
R: Well, you need to call Rogers Redding.
C: I'm gonna do that - I know him quite well.

Sometimes we win. 

[TXMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxHB6j8XqKI

[Atlanta Blue]

No doubt, the jerk to the ground in the video is a RTP foul, and probably a horse collar if he still had the ball.

But just like the punter getting "less" protection if he runs before kicking the ball, shouldn't there be more leeway on hitting a passer that runs before passing?  Had there not been the jerk in this play, I assume the other contact would have been allowed?

[TXMike]

I would hope so.  It was very close to the release of the ball anyway.  But the extra act definitely took it into hankyville

[jimcore]

This action would be a personal foul if this wasn't the passer.  If they just announce it as a PF, then coach has no complaint.

[Diablo]

Conversation goes something like this:
C (mildly heated): How is that roughing the passer?
R: How is it NOT roughing the passer?

Agree with the call.  But isn't that response a bit off key - somewhere between being confrontational and a wise arse. 

[El Macman]

Agree with the call.  But isn't that response a bit off key - somewhere between being confrontational and a wise arse. 

When spoken calmly and matter-of-factly, not at all. Putting the ball in their court to justify their objection is a solid defusing technique. They almost always open the door to their own ingorance of the rules or misunderstanding of what was actually called. Keep piling on the questions, and they either finally 'get it,' or they give up. In this case, both.
The best defense is a good offense.

[BC70]

El Mac thanks for sharing that is great.  As for the response I agree and is a great way to defuse the situation!

[ref6983]

When spoken calmly and matter-of-factly, not at all. Putting the ball in their court to justify their objection is a solid defusing technique. They almost always open the door to their own ingorance of the rules or misunderstanding of what was actually called. Keep piling on the questions, and they either finally 'get it,' or they give up. In this case, both.
The best defense is a good offense.

Conversations with a head coach are never about winning or losing.  They are about addressing the concern he has regarding the situation.

Here, the coach presented a legitimate question that should have been easily answered with just the facts because this is clearly a foul: "Your player forcefully threw the passer to the ground after the pass was thrown."

His response to that would dictate the direction of the conversation. At some point it may be appropriate to question what his view of the play was so you could respond directly to that. But to answer his initial question with a question in a seemingly curt manner is not a good technique at all.