PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Safety


Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

This is the exact wording of the rule:

It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. A realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that lands in the direction and the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver.

So I would think that the emphasis is on the definition of the "realistic chance of completion" rather than the "act of being intentional" which has to be a subjective interpretation, and this being a big game, namely the superbowl, I would think the objective interpretation would be a big priority.
 
This is the exact wording of the rule:



So I would think that the emphasis is on the definition of the "realistic chance of completion" rather than the "act of being intentional" which has to be a subjective interpretation, and this being a big game, namely the superbowl, I would think the objective interpretation would be a big priority.

I do understand what you're saying, but the very title of the rule implies a subjective component, in which case the call should not have been made.

It is yet another rule that is insufficiently explained in the NFL. NFL officials need to take a good, long look at the rulebook this offseason.
 
.and how is "vicinity" defined...5 yards, 10, 15?
 
No, it was NOT the correct call. There must be clear intent to throw the ball away, which there wasn't.

As a Patriot fan, I agree with you. Brady was getting hit (or about to get hit) while he threw the ball. To me that means the ball will not reach it's target with the same accuracy that it would if he wasn't under any pressure. It's not like the ball was thrown way out of bounds or just into the ground. It was thrown in the middle of the field and could have been picked off.

What it comes down to is that it's a judgement call which is neither right nor wrong. It just sucks that we came out on the wrong side.
 
This is the exact wording of the rule:



So I would think that the emphasis is on the definition of the "realistic chance of completion" rather than the "act of being intentional" which has to be a subjective interpretation, and this being a big game, namely the superbowl, I would think the objective interpretation would be a big priority.

I can't understand why you're not getting his point. When a QB lofts one 15 feet into the sidelines, he's violating the very rule that you're citing. I mean, the ball went over Branch's head by the same amount of air that it regularly does.
 
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.

Every incomplete pass from in the pocket could be ruled intentional grounding. They are setting a harsh precedent with these judgement calls.
 
can someone please explain why a QB can throw it away if he is outside the pocket?..why is the rule different in this case?..the QB without any doubt is avoiding a sack in this situation.
 
As a Patriot fan, I agree with you. Brady was getting hit (or about to get hit) while he threw the ball. To me that means the ball will not reach it's target with the same accuracy that it would if he wasn't under any pressure. It's not like the ball was thrown way out of bounds or just into the ground. It was thrown in the middle of the field and could have been picked off.

What it comes down to is that it's a judgement call which is neither right nor wrong. It just sucks that we came out on the wrong side.
What kills me is that the logic for the multitude of non-calls we see each and every SB is they're letting the players play and want that play to decide the game. However in this case the Giants didn't make the play and got bailed out.
 
While I was watching the game, I actually felt the non-calls on Sterling Moore for PI were make-up calls...
 
I can't understand why you're not getting his point. When a QB lofts one 15 feet into the sidelines, he's violating the very rule that you're citing. I mean, the ball went over Branch's head by the same amount of air that it regularly does.

Even if a QB chucks it into the stands, there must be a receiver somewhere in the vicinity of where the ball last left the area of play.
 
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.

Well don't you think that the obvious absence of a receiver in the area where the ball landed, would have helped make that call easier to make?
 
FWW. A couple of years ago i saw Brady called for intentional ground when he threw the ball over everyones head, and out of the back of the EZ. The Pats were down inside the twenty, Brady went back didn't see anyone open and threw it out of the back of the end zone. He got flagged for IG, now how did the ref Know that he didn't just over throw his intended target?
 
Last edited:
Even if a QB chucks it into the stands, there must be a receiver somewhere in the vicinity of where the ball last left the area of play.
I fail to see the phrase "of where the ball last left the area of play" in the rule you posted.
It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. A realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that lands in the direction and the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver.
 
rule should be only IG if ball doesn't reach the line of scrimmage, so a QB can't just throw the ball into the ground while being tackled. However ,if a QB wants to throw an incompletion down the field, he should be able to...or should he just take the hit?..Thought the league wanted to protect QBs..lol
 
I fail to see the phrase "of where the ball last left the area of play" in the rule you posted.

Where the ball last left the area should be in the direction and vicinity of the receiver, so even if it goes five feet over Branch's head on the sideline (e.g., into the stands) it's still in his "direction" right?

I guess it may be that the "vicinity" interpretation is a little murkier when it comes to the sidelines or the end zone which may be why you don't see much enforcement there, but if you chuck it upfield, and it hits the middle of the field with no players nearby, I would guess that's easier to enforce.
 
Last edited:
While I was watching the game, I actually felt the non-calls on Sterling Moore for PI were make-up calls...

OT: I thought they were just letting more contact go. I'm pretty sure Blackburn pushed Gronk on the INT, for example -- but I was fine w/it b/c it was consistent with their PI officiating on other plays.
 
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.

Here is Utube of that play (you have to wait until after the free kick to see the replays of the safety).

Patriots Safety @ Superbowl XLVI 2012 - YouTube

While Eli is the obvious choice for MVP, I might have given it to Gints punter Weatherford. He pinned the Pats deep several times with great punts. The Pats started with crap field position on almost every possession. That was a big factor in the game.
 
Where the ball last left the area should be in the direction and vicinity of the receiver, so even if it goes five feet over Branch's head on the sideline (e.g., into the stands) it's still in his "direction" right?

I guess it may be that the "vicinity" interpretation is a little murkier when it comes to the sidelines or the end zone which may be why you don't see much enforcement there, but if you chuck it upfield, and it hits the middle of the field with no players nearby, I would guess that's easier to enforce.

The ball landed a couple feet inside the right hash mark on the 43 yard line.

Guess who was a couple feet inside the right hash mark on the 25 yard line at the exact second Brady let go of the ball?

It was Deion Branch.

The throw was definitely in line, but it was 18 yards upfield. Of course, Deion dragged across the middle, there was always the possibility he could turn upfield and try to track that ball down.
 
The ball landed a couple feet inside the right hash mark on the 43 yard line.

Guess who was a couple feet inside the right hash mark on the 25 yard line at the exact second Brady let go of the ball?

It was Deion Branch.

The throw was definitely in line, but it was 18 yards upfield. Of course, Deion dragged across the middle, there was always the possibility he could turn upfield and try to track that ball down.

I didn't see that, and I don't think I'll ever rewatch the game so I'll take your word for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots Kraft ‘Involved’ In Decision Making?  Zolak Says That’s Not the Case
MORSE: Final First Round Patriots Mock Draft
Slow Starts: Stark Contrast as Patriots Ponder Which Top QB To Draft
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/24: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/23: News and Notes
MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Back
Top