Welcome to PatsFans.com

Intentional Grounding Rule

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by upstater1, Oct 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    13,027
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +43 / 4 / -3

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  2. Triumph

    Triumph Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,173
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +105 / 22 / -12

    #32 Jersey

    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.
  3. PatsFan2

    PatsFan2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,516
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    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.
  4. jcdavey

    jcdavey Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    4,669
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    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
  5. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    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.
  6. The Gr8est

    The Gr8est Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  7. PatsFan2

    PatsFan2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,516
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    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.:mad: The little things killed them yesterday...not a good moment for BB and Brady.
  8. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10,825
    Likes Received:
    136
    Ratings:
    +272 / 4 / -9

    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
  9. hyperpat

    hyperpat Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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:

  10. signbabybrady

    signbabybrady Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,857
    Likes Received:
    51
    Ratings:
    +72 / 1 / -1

    #24 Jersey

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

    PATRIOTSFANINPA Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    15,719
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    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?
  12. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10,825
    Likes Received:
    136
    Ratings:
    +272 / 4 / -9

    I think the defenders and the possibility of the QB being sacked play into the decision
  13. The Gr8est

    The Gr8est Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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?
  14. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    13,027
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +43 / 4 / -3

    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?
  15. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    13,027
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +43 / 4 / -3

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

    IllegalContact On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10,825
    Likes Received:
    136
    Ratings:
    +272 / 4 / -9

    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
  17. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10,825
    Likes Received:
    136
    Ratings:
    +272 / 4 / -9

    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
  18. PatsSox363804

    PatsSox363804 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    2,636
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    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.
  19. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    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.
  20. PP2

    PP2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,721
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +100 / 3 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>