Safety

[Bill B.]

I am still shocked that this was called. How many times have you seen a QB just chuck the ball to get rid of it and nothing is called? I've seen QBs toss it out of bounds 20 yards over everyones head and intentional grounding is never called. Is it because it was in bounds, that they called it. Has anyone else ever seen this called before in any game? I thought it was a terrible call that put the Patriots in a big hole. If not for the safety, who knows how this game would have gone.

 

[IllegalContact]

I am still shocked that this was called. How many times have you seen a QB just chuck the ball to get rid of it and nothing is called? I've seen QBs toss it out of bounds 20 yards over everyones head and intentional grounding is never called. Is it because it was in bounds, that they called it. Has anyone else ever seen this called before in any game? I thought it was a terrible call that put the Patriots in a big hole. If not for the safety, who knows how this game would have gone.

unfortunately, it was the right call.

the rules for intentional grounding are ridiculous.

it doesn't get any more intentional than the ball spiking at the end of the game, but that's OK

manning threw a couple of balls out of bounds intentionally, and everyone knew it was intentional, but as long as certain conditions that have nothing to do with intent in place, then its not intentional.

I'm actually more pissed about the 12 men.....that was intentional.......should be a 15 yarder and a dead ball foul meaning no time lost.

if the league doesn't say something, I'd be putting 12 out there any time a team starts a drive inside the 2 minute warning....hell, put 15 out there and blitz the QB with 9 of them

 

[PatsSox363804]

Letter of the rule its the right call but I cant believe they actually threw the flag. I didnt even consider that it was grounding until they dropped it and usually grounding calls are pretty obvious. I can't think of a time I saw them throw a flag on a ball that landed mid field and in that situation just an amazing call by the ref which changed the entire game right off the bat.

 

[sambam94]

according to the rule, it was probably the correct call, but it's very arbitrary. I don't see why a QB can't throw the ball to a spot on the field where no one can catch it. With the new rules to protect QBs, it especially makes little sense. I guess the QB is supposed to take the hit instead of throwing an incompletion.

I would change the rule to the defender has to be in the process of tackling the QB..if the QB grounds it in this situation, penalty. If the QB is not being tackled, he can throw it wherever he darn well pleases.

 

[PatsSox363804]

Just watched the play again and noticed 3 things:

1) Green Ellis was coming open right as Brady chucked that downfield. If Mankins doesnt Ole Tuck right on through Brady may have had the extra second to check it down. Even with how the play developed Brady should have just threw it at Lawfirms feet.

2) There was a receiver on the sideline at about the same distance and Brady could have thrown it out of bounds there and not got a grounding call.

3) The ball went about 10 feet over Branch's head and you could easily say that Brady threw it high because Tuck was in his face. If that is grounding then they should NEVER call PI when a ball is 10 feet over a receivers head.

 

[Patspsycho]

according to the rule, it was probably the correct call, but it's very arbitrary. I don't see why a QB can't throw the ball to a spot on the field where no one can catch it. With the new rules to protect QBs, it especially makes little sense. I guess the QB is supposed to take the hit instead of throwing an incompletion.

That is exactly the definition of intentional grounding.

If a QB could throw it anywhere at anytime, you would see very very few sacks. The game would become frustrating to follow.

 

[BigHoss28]

No, it was NOT the correct call. There must be clear intent to throw the ball away, which there wasn't.

 

[Bertil]

If that ball sailed out of bounds instead of the middle of the field, it would've been fine. there were receivers there. He didn't even have to leave the pocket. Brady's fault, pure and simple. If that was Eli, we'd be on board with the safety call. It was the right one.

 

[BigHoss28]

If that ball sailed out of bounds instead of the middle of the field, it would've been fine. there were receivers there. He didn't even have to leave the pocket. Brady's fault, pure and simple. If that was Eli, we'd be on board with the safety call. It was the right one.

No it wasn't. There was not clear intent to throw the ball away.

 

[chicowalker]

It was the correct call by the letter of the rules, but it really shouldn't be called, imo.

As others have alluded to, he wasn't about to be dropped by Tuck. But that is the rule, unfortunately, so the call was technically correct.

Refs should use some sense on a play like this, just as they do on holding calls on virtually every play and on PI calls. The Pats gained no advantage from him throwing it away. From that perspective, I thought it was a terrible call, particularly given the influence on the game.

(btw, one other issue I have with the rule is that it doesn't take into account miscommunications b/t QBs and receivers -- though I'm not saying that was the case here. saw this in a college game this year -- clearly they weren't on the same page, Qb threw to empty space and grounding was called)

 

[Patspsycho]

No, it was NOT the correct call. There must be clear intent to throw the ball away, which there wasn't.

That isn't how the rule is defined. The rule is defined by whether or not a receiver is in the area where the ball is grounded, not if the QB "appears to be intentionally" throwing the ball away.

 

[sambam94]

so if the rule is in place to avoid being sacked..then why is it OK for a QB who is running for his life out of the pocket to throw it away? In these situations the QB is always doing it to avoid a sack.

How about the QB on the opposing team's 5 yard line who sits in the pocket on 1st down, sees no one open and throws it 10 yards into the stands beyond the end zone. Why did he do that?...because no one was open and if he waits any longer, he would be sacked..right?...He did it to avoid a sack....intentional grounding.?...nope. The rule is way too arbitrary.

 

[VrabelJr]

It was a borderline call that the Giants seemingly got a lot of during their entire playoff run while at the same time almost never getting called for Offensive holding (once vs. us but there should have been at least 3). Poor Wilfork, he got felt up by Baas and Snee all day.

 

[robbomango]

so if the rule is in place to avoid being sacked..then why is it OK for a QB who is running for his life out of the pocket to throw it away? In these situations the QB is always doing it to avoid a sack.

How about the QB on the opposing team's 5 yard line who sits in the pocket on 1st down, sees no one open and throws it 10 yards into the stands beyond the end zone. Why did he do that?...because no one was open and if he waits any longer, he would be sacked..right?...He did it to avoid a sack....intentional grounding.?...nope. The rule is way too arbitrary.

the people in the stands or crowd of potential receivers?:confused2:

 

[BigHoss28]

That isn't how the rule is defined. The rule is defined by whether or not a receiver is in the area where the ball is grounded, not if the QB "appears to be intentionally" throwing the ball away.

The need for intent is implied in the wording of the actual rule: "Intentional grounding of a forward pass."

So, to call a rule "Intentional grounding" inherently states that intent on the part of the QB IS, in fact, necessary to make the call.

 

[brdmaverick]

For the non-calls that you are referring to, I imagine those are from when a QB is clearly (by our standards) making no attempt and completing a pass and just chucking it out of bounds. The difference is that usually it at least travels over a receiver to the point where one could argue that it was just a bad pass to the receiver.

Unfortunately, that did NOT apply in this circumstance. There was absolutely no receiver in the area. This was the very definition of intentional grounding. Brady threw the ball JUST to avoid the sack, tell me this, how would that NOT be intentional grounding. I knew it when I saw it, and trust me, I would be SCREAMING for the flag if it were the Giants.

It was the right call, plain and simple.

 

[brdmaverick]

The rule is way too arbitrary.

Even if it is arbitrary, it's one of those things you definitely know when you see it. THAT, was definitely intentional grounding.

I was just as unhappy with the result as you, but it was the right call.

We do not have any grounds for complaining.

 

[DEVIOUS 1]

As biased as my opinion is on that play. My opinion is that it was a ticky tack call based on an assumption of intent of grounding. Which I think is rediculous given the enormity of the stage.

While I admit it may have been Brady's way of throwing it away to avoid a sack...You could also argue that he was trying to make a play to Branch on the crossing route and sailed the ball over his head in response to pressure on the play. Or, Brady could have been throwing to a spot that he felt one of his receivers should have broken his route off too.

Either way, even though Collinsworth did his best to justify the call during the game, I saw a situation where there was plenty of grey area to make a definitive judgement on that call. A call that was really the difference in the game I might add.

All my years of watching Football, I've seen plenty of legit grounding calls. NONE like that, were a ball is heaved down the field.

If a QB is getting pressured in the pocket, and he reads a fly pattern and lets it fly, but the receiver reads it different and runs a hitch, and the ball flys 25 yards over his head and no other receiver is around.......Then according to Collinsworth and some on this site, that should be a penalty everytime.

 

[sambam94]

For the non-calls that you are referring to, I imagine those are from when a QB is clearly (by our standards) making no attempt and completing a pass and just chucking it out of bounds. The difference is that usually it at least travels over a receiver to the point where one could argue that it was just a bad pass to the receiver.

Unfortunately, that did NOT apply in this circumstance. There was absolutely no receiver in the area. This was the very definition of intentional grounding. Brady threw the ball JUST to avoid the sack, tell me this, how would that NOT be intentional grounding. I knew it when I saw it, and trust me, I would be SCREAMING for the flag if it were the Giants.

Edit: Can someone please inform me why a QB can throw the ball away when he is out of the pocket being chased from behind by a lineman. Why is the rule different in this case? He is without a doubt trying to avoid a sack.

It was the right call, plain and simple.

I would argue that anytime a QB throws the ball away..IE: well out of the end zone or sideline...he is doing so to avoid being sacked. Why else would he throw it away?..If he stands there long enough he will be sacked. So, the rule isn't to avoid a loss(sack)..it is to avoid a sack when a defensive player is close enough to the QB and the ref "feels" the Qb doesn't throw it close enough to a WR.

 

[BigHoss28]

For the non-calls that you are referring to, I imagine those are from when a QB is clearly (by our standards) making no attempt and completing a pass and just chucking it out of bounds. The difference is that usually it at least travels over a receiver to the point where one could argue that it was just a bad pass to the receiver.

Unfortunately, that did NOT apply in this circumstance. There was absolutely no receiver in the area. This was the very definition of intentional grounding. Brady threw the ball JUST to avoid the sack, tell me this, how would that NOT be intentional grounding. I knew it when I saw it, and trust me, I would be SCREAMING for the flag if it were the Giants.

It was the right call, plain and simple.

I contend that intent could not clearly be inferred from what happened on that play. It was not necessarily the wrong call, but not necessarily the right call either.

It is not a black and white rule, therefore it should not have been called.