Intentional Grounding Rule

[upstater1]

I like the rule and don't want them to change it BUT it really makes no sense.

The refs are trying to do way too much guessing out there. Now, I have no doubt that Brady tried to get rid of the ball, both at the end of the first half and going all the way back to the Super Bowl. But QBs do those things all the time with no calls. In the SB, in fact, the ball sailed directly over Branch's head as he ran upfield and it landed 10 yards beyond him. ... like no QB has ever overthrown a WR by 10 yards before? How is a ref really supposed to judge that?

What bugs me about the rule is that if a QB in the grasp intentionally grounds it as he's being twisted, it is not a penalty. Why? Because the ref can no longer determine intent because the defender is in control of the QBs body.

Same thing with Brady yesterday. A defender actually had him in his clutches when Brady threw and the defender turned Brady's shoulders around. I do believe Brady had enough command to deliberately throw it away, but do we honestly expect the ref to make that sort of determination right there? The Seahawk had grabbed Brady's shoulder and yanked him.

It makes no sense to me for effectively a sack to be awarded when a defender merely grabs a QB as he's throwing it away, but if a defender grabs and yanks a QB, then the QB escapes effectively without a sack.

It's pure nonsense.

 

[Triumph]

I thought the exact same.

While under duress, QBs throw the ball to open areas all the time thinking that the WR will run to that location.

 

[PatsFan2]

I love the rule...Brady was talking to Branch after the play...so it's quite obvious he wasn't where he was suppose to.

 

[jcdavey]

the only time i really hate this rule is when the qb's throw goes wild due to getting hit and the refs call it grounding, or when a wr runs the wrong timing route and the refs call it grounding because no receiver was in the area


that pisses me off

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Either Gronk made a mistake in judgement or that was one piss poor play call because Brady lacked targets in the one area where he had to have at least one and Branch got held up at the LOS. Coaches can't execute for them but they are supposed to put players in a position to win on every play. The smart playcall there would have been to take the points via FG heading into the locker room. Had they simply done that they'd have won the damn game...despite all the rest.

 

[The Gr8est]

I would like to see the call changed to only cover short passes behind the LOS where the QB is intentionally throwing it into the ground to avoid a sack. That would mean the pass at Connolly's feet would still be IG, as it should have been.

On calls on throws downfield, like in the SB, the defense has a chance to actually catch the pass. Would they wave off intentional grounding if the ball was picked?


Also, should having a receiver being in the area be the deciding factor? We see passes all the time where the QB isn't under extreme duress yet, but the play has failed and he is making a pass that he has no hope or expectation will be completed. The intent is the same; abort the play and regroup.

 

[PatsFan2]

Either Gronk made a mistake in judgement or that was one piss poor play call because Brady lacked targets in the one area where he had to have at least one and Branch got held up at the LOS. Coaches can't execute for them but they are supposed to put players in a position to win on every play. The smart playcall there would have been to take the points via FG heading into the locker room. Had they simply done that they'd have won the damn game...despite all the rest.

They lost 15 seconds on of those plays why Brady didn't they call a time out earlier is beyond me. To get 0 points on that series alone is mind boggling. The little things killed them yesterday...not a good moment for BB and Brady.

 

[IllegalContact]

Either Gronk made a mistake in judgement or that was one piss poor play call because Brady lacked targets in the one area where he had to have at least one and Branch got held up at the LOS. Coaches can't execute for them but they are supposed to put players in a position to win on every play. The smart playcall there would have been to take the points via FG heading into the locker room. Had they simply done that they'd have won the damn game...despite all the rest.

umm....no.....under duress, he simply threw it away. one camera angle made it clear what brady was looking at and there was no WR in sight. with the time it took for the ball to leave brady's hand and go through the end zone, he should have been able to see his target 5-10 feet from the target.

besides, its not like we haven't seen this from him before

it was a panic move, pure and simple

 

[hyperpat]

On the SB play, Branch was actually heading to the right side of the field. I'm guessing Brady threw it down the left hashmarks because he thought Branch was headed up field on a fly route. Instead, Branch goes forward and then cuts right. I posted the item below in February:

Some thoughts on the safety. I'm not a major X's and O's guy so I might have gotten some of this a bit off.

The safety was a big play. It gave the Gints two points and the ball. Plus, the Pats D had just stopped the Gints and forced them to punt, but the Pats D had just been on the field for, I believe, six minutes. Now they had to come back out again after only one play by the Pats offense. Not the recommended way to play the Super Bowl.

I don't quite understand what Brady was looking at during this play and why he threw the ball away down the center of the field.

The situation: Branch is wide left. Welker in the slot. Two tights ends with Hernandez (or tackle Nate Solder as the other tight end, can't tell from video) left and Gronk on right. Green Ellis is a RB in backfield. Brady under center. Brady fakes handoff to Green Ellis, who dives into line. Hernandez/Solder stays in to block. Gronk runs ten yards and turns and sits, looking back at Brady. Branch runs straight and then cuts to his right across the deep middle. Welker runs a shorter route and also cuts to the right across the middle. Gints safety bites on the Green Ellis play action and steps up. Gints outside LB drops back to cover Welker but then lets him go. The safety who bit on PA now tries to back pedal, but Welker runs right by the safety and the LB. Welker is uncovered as he runs to the right along the Pats 21-yard line. He raises his hand to tell Brady he's open. The other safety is behind him, but too deep for him to close on a well-thrown pass before it reaches Welker. Brady never sees Welker or maybe doesn't think he can throw to him, perhaps worried that the LB who has Gronk bracketed to Gronk's left will be able to get a hand on it and cause a deflection. But it seems to me that Welker is deep enough for Tom to get it to him.

What was Brady looking at? One theory is that his first read is Gronk. He wants to see if the gimpy TE can get open. It's a natural reaction to see just how Gronk performs with his ankle. Perhaps he focused on Gronk, who is triple bracket covered, and by the time he sees Welker, Justin Tuck is on top of him.

But here's the truly wacky part. Watch the whole clip and you'll see that Tuck, who forces the bad throw by Brady, starts out on the right side of the Pats line and stunts to his right. Sebastian Vollmer (No. 76) tries to stay with him, but can't. Even center Dan Connolly (No. 63) can't pick him up. But they both push on Tuck's back and he is losing his balance and looking like he is going to go down. But he runs right into Logan Mankins (No. 70) who has no assignment at that point. Tuck collides with Mankins. The force of the impact drives Mankins to his left and he can't recover his balance and block Tuck before the very athletic Tuck uses the impact to get his feet under him and redirect himself towards Brady. If Mankins is not in that exact spot, Tuck likely goes to the ground and Brady has another second to scan the field; Connolly and or Mankins might have even been able to circle around and block Tuck as he gets up.

Now, why does Brady throw the ball down the middle of the field when he throws it away? There are no receivers nearby and the result is a safety. This is odd because Gronk, Welker and Branch are all on the right side of the field. Why doesn't Brady throw the ball away over the right sideline? One reason may be that Branch ran the wrong route? Welker is running a drag to the right, Gronk is to the right. The better approach for Branch is to run an outside route or a straight go route, drawing his coverage away from Welker and Gronk on the right. Instead, he runs right, too. Perhaps Brady expected Branch to be running a go and thought he could over throw Branch and thus satisfy the requirement of having a receiver in the area so the play doesn't draw a grounding penalty.

If Brady had identified Welker earlier and thrown to him right after Wes raises his hand, the Pats start the game with a 20-yard completion and a first down, getting them out of hole. Interesting play. Would love to have Brady tell us what he was seeing/thinking on that one.

 

[signbabybrady]

What I found interesting is that I always thought you could just throw it out the back of the end zone with no penalty?

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I thought a pass high and out of the back of the end zone was a throw away and not a penalty.....wasn't the ball high enough to consider that a throw away?

 

[IllegalContact]

I thought a pass high and out of the back of the end zone was a throw away and not a penalty.....wasn't the ball high enough to consider that a throw away?

I think the defenders and the possibility of the QB being sacked play into the decision

 

[The Gr8est]

Just with the name of the penalty, "grounding", suggests that the rule was originally implemented to prevent QBs from deliberately throwing an uncatchable ball into the ground.

Of course spiking the ball to stop the clock is the epitome of "intentional grounding", but there was a rule implemented to allow it.

Whoda thunk it?

 

[upstater1]

umm....no.....under duress, he simply threw it away. one camera angle made it clear what brady was looking at and there was no WR in sight. with the time it took for the ball to leave brady's hand and go through the end zone, he should have been able to see his target 5-10 feet from the target.

besides, its not like we haven't seen this from him before

it was a panic move, pure and simple

Oh, BS, he was being sacked. Did you totally miss the guy sacking him? What exactly do you want him to do with someone on his back?

 

[upstater1]

On the SB play, Branch was actually heading to the right side of the field. I'm guessing Brady threw it down the left hashmarks because he thought Branch was headed up field on a fly route. Instead, Branch goes forward and then cuts right. I posted the item below in February:

Yes, and in fact, the ball sailed DIRECTLY over Branch's head right inside the hashmarks.

 

[IllegalContact]

Oh, BS, he was being sacked. Did you totally miss the guy sacking him? What exactly do you want him to do with someone on his back?

he was being sacked and he threw the ball away.......since nobody was there in the middle, he should have figured there'd be someone in the area in one of the corners .... that is unless he thought they all ran off the field

 

[IllegalContact]

the funny thing is that this situation didn't happen once in the game.....it happened twice.....the other was a panic high throw to welker that resulted in an INT

 

[PatsSox363804]

The fact that there was no one in the middle of the end zone, or even running a route towards it that I saw, to make that call impossible is a failure on the coaching staff.

 

[Pujo]

I thought a pass high and out of the back of the end zone was a throw away and not a penalty.....wasn't the ball high enough to consider that a throw away?

A QB may only intentionally throw the ball away if he's outside the tackles, and the ball must travel at least the LOS. Brady was in the pocket both times so it was the right call.

 

[PP2]

A QB may only intentionally throw the ball away if he's outside the tackles, and the ball must travel at least the LOS. Brady was in the pocket both times so it was the right call.

Actually outside the pocket. The size of the pocket is mostly the discretion of the referee's interpretation, but you are right, it was the correct call. It was a throw made under duress which is part of the interpretation.