Intentional Grounding

Spielman · 01-01-2006, 10:48 PM

The way this penalty has been called has been one of my pet peeves for years. There's no consistency. It hardly ever seems to be called, even in situations that clearly meet the criteria set in the rules, so that when it actually is, you have to wonder what magical conjunction of events took place to make this time different.

It just got called on Jamie Martin of the Rams in the Sunday Night game, on a deep throw where one of the receivers ran a post when Martin thought he was going to run a corner instead. It wasn't intentional grounding by any sane definition, and it caused the Rams field goal attempt to be a lot longer, and come up short. I saw no less than three plays in other games today where grounding could have been legitimately called, and where do they call it but on a play that makes no sense at all.

Can they ever get this thing right? Can they fix it in any way that makes sense? Or do you not think it's a problem?

Cooleyvol · 01-01-2006, 10:55 PM

Never thought it was a problem.

Erik W. · 01-01-2006, 11:06 PM

I've never really thought it was a problem, but that call tonight was just ridiculous.

sebastian0622 · 01-01-2006, 11:19 PM

I hate the penalty because the implementation of it is so terrible. First, there are some arbitrary exceptions in the rules, notably:

-If a QB is about to get sacked, he can throw the ball at the ground well short of the feet of a receiver without penalty, even if the QB is in the pocket.

-A QB can throw the ball away when outside of the tackle box, even if a sack is imminent.

I guess I don't see why those things are excluded from the rule?

Want to fix the problem? Doing away with the above restrictions might work. So might eliminating the intentional grounding penalty as we know it, calling the "in-the-grasp rule" only (spot of foul, loss of down if QB throws ball away while being touched by a defender), and loosening the roughing the passer rules. You'd be amazed how many more QB's would cover up and take the sack if they couldn't just throw it away and have big daddy referee protect them from illegal and immoral football acts like getting hit hard.

Oh, and start calling the damned holding penalties on offensive linemen. Since when did it become legal for offensive linemen to grab under or on the outsides of defenders' shoulder pads? The NFL wouldn't advocate it (passing yards = money), but that would be a good step towards revitalizing the sack.

abailey3313 · 01-01-2006, 11:23 PM

The definition of "in the pocket" is sort of silly. I wasn't aware of this until a week or so ago, but if a quarterback takes a sack, turns around, and runs 20 yards in the other direction without going in either direction, and then throws the ball out of bounds, he's considered to still be in the pocket.

Not that this is likely to happen, but it seems dumb to me that the back of the pocket extends all the way to the end zone at the side of the field the offense has their backs to.

sebastian0622 · 01-01-2006, 11:25 PM

Yah "within the pocket" just means that the QB hasn't moved laterally so as to be outside of the initial formation location of the offensive tackles.

Either way, I don't see what that should have to do with intentional grounding. All that happens is that you decrease 5 and 7-step drops and make the offenses run more bootlegs to redefine the "pocket" to something that skirts the penalty if you have to throw the ball away. Sounds like kind of an arbitrary work-around of an arbitrary rule.

abailey3313 · 01-01-2006, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Yah "within the pocket" just means that the QB hasn't moved laterally so as to be outside of the initial formation location of the offensive tackles.

Yeah, I think that's silly.

Then again, the only reason I even care is because I drop back about 15 yards on every passing play in Madden. So I get intentional grounding called quite a bit.

edrooney · 01-01-2006, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azamien

I've never really thought it was a problem, but that call tonight was just ridiculous.

I agree with this. Rubbish call tonight, but mostly I'm happy with the rule.

JWay · 01-01-2006, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abailey3313

Yeah, I think that's silly.

Then again, the only reason I even care is because I drop back about 15 yards on every passing play in Madden. So I get intentional grounding called quite a bit.

oh God, I'd murder you so easy in that game, wtf you talking about your a good madden player and you drop back 15 yards on every pass. c'mon you still playing '97?

abailey3313 · 01-01-2006, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWay

oh God, I'd murder you so easy in that game, wtf you talking about your a good madden player and you drop back 15 yards on every pass. c'mon you still playing '97?

It was an exaggeration. Kind of like when you say you're good.

01-01-2006, 10:48 PM	#1
Spielman All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,668	Intentional Grounding The way this penalty has been called has been one of my pet peeves for years. There's no consistency. It hardly ever seems to be called, even in situations that clearly meet the criteria set in the rules, so that when it actually is, you have to wonder what magical conjunction of events took place to make this time different. It just got called on Jamie Martin of the Rams in the Sunday Night game, on a deep throw where one of the receivers ran a post when Martin thought he was going to run a corner instead. It wasn't intentional grounding by any sane definition, and it caused the Rams field goal attempt to be a lot longer, and come up short. I saw no less than three plays in other games today where grounding could have been legitimately called, and where do they call it but on a play that makes no sense at all. Can they ever get this thing right? Can they fix it in any way that makes sense? Or do you not think it's a problem? __________________ Spielman was at one time the smartest person on these boards. http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...martest+Person I don't believe in AnotherAlias.

01-01-2006, 11:19 PM	#4
sebastian0622 Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,465	I hate the penalty because the implementation of it is so terrible. First, there are some arbitrary exceptions in the rules, notably: -If a QB is about to get sacked, he can throw the ball at the ground well short of the feet of a receiver without penalty, even if the QB is in the pocket. -A QB can throw the ball away when outside of the tackle box, even if a sack is imminent. I guess I don't see why those things are excluded from the rule? Want to fix the problem? Doing away with the above restrictions might work. So might eliminating the intentional grounding penalty as we know it, calling the "in-the-grasp rule" only (spot of foul, loss of down if QB throws ball away while being touched by a defender), and loosening the roughing the passer rules. You'd be amazed how many more QB's would cover up and take the sack if they couldn't just throw it away and have big daddy referee protect them from illegal and immoral football acts like getting hit hard. Oh, and start calling the damned holding penalties on offensive linemen. Since when did it become legal for offensive linemen to grab under or on the outsides of defenders' shoulder pads? The NFL wouldn't advocate it (passing yards = money), but that would be a good step towards revitalizing the sack. Last edited by sebastian0622; 01-01-2006 at 11:23 PM.

01-01-2006, 11:23 PM	#5
abailey3313 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,718	The definition of "in the pocket" is sort of silly. I wasn't aware of this until a week or so ago, but if a quarterback takes a sack, turns around, and runs 20 yards in the other direction without going in either direction, and then throws the ball out of bounds, he's considered to still be in the pocket. Not that this is likely to happen, but it seems dumb to me that the back of the pocket extends all the way to the end zone at the side of the field the offense has their backs to. __________________

01-01-2006, 11:25 PM	#6
sebastian0622 Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,465	Yah "within the pocket" just means that the QB hasn't moved laterally so as to be outside of the initial formation location of the offensive tackles. Either way, I don't see what that should have to do with intentional grounding. All that happens is that you decrease 5 and 7-step drops and make the offenses run more bootlegs to redefine the "pocket" to something that skirts the penalty if you have to throw the ball away. Sounds like kind of an arbitrary work-around of an arbitrary rule. Last edited by sebastian0622; 01-01-2006 at 11:27 PM.

01-01-2006, 10:55 PM	#2
Cooleyvol Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Union City, TN Posts: 6,383	Never thought it was a problem.

01-01-2006, 11:06 PM	#3
Erik W. Global Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Rivière-du-Loup, Qc Posts: 4,615	I've never really thought it was a problem, but that call tonight was just ridiculous.