Possible Intentional Grounding non call

[deroc5050]

On the game tying drive, I forget if it was 1st or 2nd down Brady drops back to pass and he is basically on the goal line. Now the pass was sort of in the direction of James White.. maybe under normal circumstances there was atleast a possibility of a grounding call. BUT Brady was hit as he threw the ball IIRC which clearly effects the pass, so its a good no call right?

When QB's get hit as they are releasing the ball and the ball ends up in the dirt, clearly effected by the hit... its usually called an incomplete pass right?

I know there are circumstances when the QB is getting taken down to the ground and just throws it away to avoid the sack, they have called grounding on those plays. But its sort of a judgement call isn't it?

 

[sb1]

Would have been ticky tack and those won't get called in this situation. It was close enough to Lewis and that was good enough. Also looked like he might have stepped out of pocket. By rule grounding won't be called if the QB is not in the pocket.

 

[Plunkett2Vataha]

I don't know how close White was to the ball, but I don't think Brady was trying to throw it away. What sticks out to me about the play was it landed between three Falcons. That ball was so close to being another "pick six". One of the Falcons had slipped and was on his hands and knees trying to get up when the ball landed about five yards in front of him. I don't know what made him lose his footing, but I believe if the Falcon had kept his footing, he would have easily had the "pick six". So for that reason, I think it was more the hit from Jarrett that caused the errant pass.

 

[Gumby]

I always thought that was true about grounding calls, BUT IIRC Brady's arm was hit on the SB safety call (v Gints). Pass sailed way high over possible receivers. No benefit was given.

But it was early in game and I think refs expected a blowout, so they were trying to keep it close. They couldn't know Brady would lose an OL-be under duress all day and those 2-9 pts would be the game difference.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

I would think intention is implied in intentional grounding. Obviously if the QBs pass is hindered so the ball did not go where they intended, the rule should not apply.

However it's the NFL so who knows.

 

[PatsDeb]

I heard there is a move afoot to get rid of intentional grounding as a penalty - if the QB can throw it away, then let him. I applaud this move if true, I hate that penalty.

 

[Gumby]

I heard there is a move afoot to get rid of intentional grounding as a penalty - if the QB can throw it away, then let him. I applaud this move if true, I hate that penalty.

Disagree vehemently.

What is the difference between a fumble and a throwaway under your rule?
I think You would make it as unclear as Gotohell has made 'what is a catch?'

 

[deroc5050]

I heard there is a move afoot to get rid of intentional grounding as a penalty - if the QB can throw it away, then let him. I applaud this move if true, I hate that penalty.

I don't see that happening. That would be a significant rule change.. and just another advantage for the Offenses.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The move afoot I read about was in the other direction -- to get rid of the freebie "only have to get it to the LOS when QB is out of the pocket" throwaway. The same "have to be in the vicinity of an eligible receiver" rule would apply whether the QB was in the pocket or not. I like it!

I would be totally against getting rid of IG. QBs should not be able to avoid a sack by throwing the ball to nowhere.

 

[fourhour]

More shyt for the haters, FFS!

 

[PatsDeb]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If the QB can get rid of the ball to avoid a sack, I think he should be able to do so. Brady could certainly benefit from such a rule with his quick release, but Quantum may be right, maybe the move is to get rid of the "out of the pocket/have to make it to the LOS." I'd still rather get rid of it all together.

 

[luuked]

On the game tying drive, I forget if it was 1st or 2nd down Brady drops back to pass and he is basically on the goal line. Now the pass was sort of in the direction of James White.. maybe under normal circumstances there was atleast a possibility of a grounding call. BUT Brady was hit as he threw the ball IIRC which clearly effects the pass, so its a good no call right?

When QB's get hit as they are releasing the ball and the ball ends up in the dirt, clearly effected by the hit... its usually called an incomplete pass right?

I know there are circumstances when the QB is getting taken down to the ground and just throws it away to avoid the sack, they have called grounding on those plays. But its sort of a judgement call isn't it?

I am not sure about the exact rule because on some level it is meant to stop the QB to prevent a sack by just throwing it away. So a player being on him already kinda makes it even more likely in my book.

In any case, I am happy that more and more are noticing it because I was pointing that play out a few days ago when compiling a list of things that suddenly broke our way in the fourth quarter. Yes, it would have been ticky, tacky but on some level so was the call that led to the safety in the second SB against the Giants.

On a similar level, some Falcons fans/haters like to point out the missed facemask on Sanu by Ryan which would have offset the holding by Matthews. Then most other people are countering that the same ref would have needed to call facemask by Sanu on Ryan as well. But what gets a bit lost here is that even if both facemasks were called on that play it would have still eradicated the Matthews hold even though Atlanta had two 15yd penalties called on them while the Pats only had one.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I am not sure about the exact rule because on some level it is meant to stop the QB to prevent a sack by just throwing it away. So a player being on him already kinda makes it even more likely in my book.

If in the opinion of the ref the throw was affected by contact with the defensive player it is explicitly not intentional grounding.

 

[Ring 6]

I always thought that was true about grounding calls, BUT IIRC Brady's arm was hit on the SB safety call (v Gints). Pass sailed way high over possible receivers. No benefit was given.

But it was early in game and I think refs expected a blowout, so they were trying to keep it close. They couldn't know Brady would lose an OL-be under duress all day and those 2-9 pts would be the game difference.

Brady wasn't hit in that play.

 

[Ring 6]

I am not sure about the exact rule because on some level it is meant to stop the QB to prevent a sack by just throwing it away. So a player being on him already kinda makes it even more likely in my book.

In any case, I am happy that more and more are noticing it because I was pointing that play out a few days ago when compiling a list of things that suddenly broke our way in the fourth quarter. Yes, it would have been ticky, tacky but on some level so was the call that led to the safety in the second SB against the Giants.

On a similar level, some Falcons fans/haters like to point out the missed facemask on Sanu by Ryan which would have offset the holding by Matthews. Then most other people are countering that the same ref would have needed to call facemask by Sanu on Ryan as well. But what gets a bit lost here is that even if both facemasks were called on that play it would have still eradicated the Matthews hold even though Atlanta had two 15yd penalties called on them while the Pats only had one.

Ryan was not guilty of facemasking. His hand was in the face mask and he let go. That is legal. There used to be a 5 yard incidental face mask penalty but now it is only 15 and it has to be severe, i.e. Grabbing and twisting.