Intentional Grounding Rule

[upstater1]

Despite the name of the penalty, the QB's intent actually doesn't come into play at all. The rule (see my earlier post) makes no reference whatsoever to the QB's intent. It only says that it's IG if a QB, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to defensive pressure, throws the ball nowhere near an eligible receiver. What the QB was thinking or intending doesn't enter into it.

First, what is near a WR?

Don't you have to determine whether he tried to throw it near? As soon as you do, you are gauging intent.

Second, how do you know where a QB intends to throw it when he's being dragged down by a defender?

 

[Pujo]

Lol, rule goes against the Pats, so now let's start questioning the rule. The point isn't how great of a rule it is or isn't, that can always be debated, but everyone (certainly including Brady) knew the rule going into it. Rule changes are for the offseason, once the game starts you play by the rules - good or bad. Brady was correctly penalized twice for it. Life goes on.

 

[Avenger]

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

Except in today's NFL Qb's often throw before WR's make their breaks.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Don't you have to determine whether he tried to throw it near? As soon as you do, you are gauging intent.

No, you don't have to make that determination. The rule talks about where the ball actually went, not where the QB intended it to go.

 

[robbomango]

As someone else pointed out it looks like TB either gets a TD or nothing because there's only 1 second left on the clock at the end from a throw straight up the gut never mind an incompletion to either side of the EZ.

Looked like a tough spot to be put in, when your playing on the road in such a loud environment against the leagues #1 D I think you go with a field goal in that situation every time.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

As someone else pointed out it looks like TB either gets a TD or nothing because there's only 1 second left on the clock at the end from a throw straight up the gut never mind an incompletion to either side of the EZ.

Looked like a tough spot to be put in, when your playing on the road in such a loud environment against the leagues #1 D I think you go with a field goal in that situation every time.

Replay showed there was 2.0 seconds left when it hit the ground. Throwing it over Gronk's head wouldn't have taken significantly more time. He should've decided on the throwaway sooner though.

 

[upstater1]

Lol, rule goes against the Pats, so now let's start questioning the rule. The point isn't how great of a rule it is or isn't, that can always be debated, but everyone (certainly including Brady) knew the rule going into it. Rule changes are for the offseason, once the game starts you play by the rules - good or bad. Brady was correctly penalized twice for it. Life goes on.

Oh Pardon me, this is the first time in the board's history it was mentioned. Yeah you're right!! Genius.

 

[upstater1]

No, you don't have to make that determination. The rule talks about where the ball actually went, not where the QB intended it to go.

The only way to determine this is to go back to intent.

We see QBs overthrow receivers all the time when the WR cuts his route off.

Brady wasn't in the grasp against the Giants. He got rid of it quick because he was in the end zone and saw them coming.

But, read those rules again. It says no receiver near the ball.

How near is near?

Brady threw it 45 yards downfield. If you throw a ball 45 yards downfield, how close do you have to be?

Or, then look at the intent part of the rule, which says that a QB who is hit cannot be called for grounding. How do they know he wasn't grounding? Or else, if a QB was hit as he threw (as Brady was yesterday) how do they know the throw wasn't impacted?

 

[upstater1]

Replay showed there was 2.0 seconds left when it hit the ground. Throwing it over Gronk's head wouldn't have taken significantly more time. He should've decided on the throwaway sooner though.

I thought there was 1 second left. I could have sworn it said 1 second. By the time Brady set up and threw out there, that second disappears.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The only way to determine this is to go back to intent.

You need to determine intent to know where the ball landed??

We see QBs overthrow receivers all the time when the WR cuts his route off.

If the QB isn't under the "imminent threat" of being sacked, it doesn't matter where the ball goes. So it doesn't matter that QBs overthrow receivers all the time. Only throws made when the QB is about to be sacked even get looked at.

Brady wasn't in the grasp against the Giants. He got rid of it quick because he was in the end zone and saw them coming.

But, read those rules again. It says no receiver near the ball.

How near is near?

I didn't say the rule isn't a judgement call. Obviously it is. I said it does not depend on the intent of the QB. Which it doesn't.

Or, then look at the intent part of the rule, which says that a QB who is hit cannot be called for grounding.

That has nothing to do with intent. It says if the passer is "significantly impacted" by the hit, IG shouldn't be called. There's no intent (by anyone) there. The official does not have to make any judgement about what anyone on the field is thinking. He does have to make a judgement call about what actually happened, though.

Again, it's a judgement call. Just like pass interference. With PI the official has to make a judgement call about whether the contact interfered with the other player enough to be worth throwing the flag. But the official does not have to decide what the player was thinking when he made the potentially-interfering move.

 

[Pujo]

Oh Pardon me, this is the first time in the board's history it was mentioned. Yeah you're right!! Genius.

Nah, people whined about it after the Super Bowl loss, too. Whiners will always whine.

 

[scout]

I get the intentional grounding and can live with it. I do not understand the rule where they run the time off of the clock, and in some cases (like yesterday) there is no time left on the clock. If someone can explain how that helps the game or what it is 'tied into', I would appreciate it.

 

[Pujo]

I get the intentional grounding and can live with it. I do not understand the rule where they run the time off of the clock, and in some cases (like yesterday) there is no time left on the clock. If someone can explain how that helps the game or what it is 'tied into', I would appreciate it.

The clock normally stops after a penalty until the penalty is resolved and the ball is spotted. The 10 second runoff keeps the offense from taking advantage of this to allow them to substitute or get set. Otherwise they could intentionally false start and trade 5 yards for a free time out.

 

[upstater1]

You need to determine intent to know where the ball landed??

If the QB isn't under the "imminent threat" of being sacked, it doesn't matter where the ball goes. So it doesn't matter that QBs overthrow receivers all the time. Only throws made when the QB is about to be sacked even get looked at.

I didn't say the rule isn't a judgement call. Obviously it is. I said it does not depend on the intent of the QB. Which it doesn't.

That has nothing to do with intent. It says if the passer is "significantly impacted" by the hit, IG shouldn't be called. There's no intent (by anyone) there. The official does not have to make any judgement about what anyone on the field is thinking. He does have to make a judgement call about what actually happened, though.

Again, it's a judgement call. Just like pass interference. With PI the official has to make a judgement call about whether the contact interfered with the other player enough to be worth throwing the flag. But the official does not have to decide what the player was thinking when he made the potentially-interfering move.

Here is the rule you posted. I'm going to highlight where intent is noted:

Rule 8
Section 2 - Intentional Grounding
Article 1 Definition. 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 vicinity of an originally eligible receiver.

So, you're telling me, 45 yards downfield, the referees are not judging Brady's intent? Then why are they throwing the flag? The ball landed within 10 yards directly over the head of a WR. Clearly they were judging intent.

Item 2: Physical Contact. Intentional grounding should not be called if:

(a) the passer initiates his passing motion toward an ineligible receiver and then is significantly affected by physical contact from a defensive player that causes the pass to land in an area that is not in the direction and vicinity of an eligible receiver; or

So, how do the referees know which receiver the QB INTENDS to throw the ball to? Brady was grabbed yesterday. How do they know whether his passing motion was iniitated to one receiver but his throwing motion was altered by the guy that grabbed him?

Obviously the rule is called intentional grounding for a reason. They try to determine intent from the start. If a QB does not intend to throw it in the dirt, they don't call it.

 

[upstater1]

Nah, people whined about it after the Super Bowl loss, too. Whiners will always whine.

Hell yeah I'll whine. What I can't stand is whiners whining about whiners.

 

[WhiZa]

If we're going to nitpick the intentional grounding then why not discuss Edward's TD when he pushed Dennard in the back and Dennard got called for the PI

 

[Pujo]

Hell yeah I'll whine. What I can't stand is whiners whining about whiners.

Fair enough, I'll keep my meta-whining to a minimum.

 

[jbb9s]

Replay showed there was 2.0 seconds left when it hit the ground. Throwing it over Gronk's head wouldn't have taken significantly more time. He should've decided on the throwaway sooner though.

the problem was with Josh. You call a play with one, maybe two options. If neither option is available, the decision is easy. Throw it away after only running a 3 second play. and when I say throw it away, I dont mean intentional grounding. Anyhow, Brady was looking around at several receivers. Not the right call given the clock.

 

[jbb9s]

I get the intentional grounding and can live with it. I do not understand the rule where they run the time off of the clock, and in some cases (like yesterday) there is no time left on the clock. If someone can explain how that helps the game or what it is 'tied into', I would appreciate it.

it is possible that teams without timeouts would intentially commit a penalty to get rest/call a play/substitute because clearly at the end of a game TIME is more important than 5 YARDS. I believe I saw this once before the rule. We could probably figure it out by looking at the games the season before the rule went into effect.

 

[jbb9s]

As for the 10 second runoff, Brady should either called a TO immediately after the prior play (wasting 10 seconds + by letting it run and then Bill calling the TO) or he should have spiked since they were basically lined up at that point.

See if you spike, run the play and get a IG, IF YOU HAVE A TO, you can elect to use it in lieu of the runoff. So they could have saved 3 points. Would have been enough to win the game as it turns out.