MJT wroteNot only did he throw the pass only to save yardage, but he had no idea there was a receiver in the area. He never looked up at all, he just got the ball and threw it underhand as he as falling to the ground in the EZ, which he knew would be a safety, so he was trying to avoid it with his pass. The ball never got to the LOS. It was the correct call.
You should judge intent in intentional grounding in a roundabout or indirect way, not guessing what the player was thinking directly. You judge based on what happened and work your way back through all the facts not what you think he was thinking. The ball practically hitting an eligible receiver is a fact that is hard to work back through to get to his intent to ground. It would have been pretty lucky if he had completed that pass having no idea that a receiver was there. In addition, I KNOW HE KNEW the receiver was there. They were running an Auggie pass concept on that play which is about the first pass concept any QB learns. Slant arrow mirror, he threw to the arrow, oh my gosh thatâs impossible he didnât even look at him. He has only thrown an arrow route under a slant what 2000 times in his life?
JasonTX wrote In this play that receiver wasnât even close in my opinion to having an opportunity to catch the pass.
It landed about a yard ,yard½, 2 yards away from him. It skipped what 6 inches from his hand on one bounce after he gave up on it? The thrower was falling when throwing which affected his ability to throw accurately. Do we call penalties on lack of ability now? What is âin the vicinity,â if that isnât? It would have to hit the receiver or be a complete pass to be any closer.
JasonTX wroteLooked like a good call to me since it was obvious he was just trying to get the ball out of the end zone. There was a receiver in the area but he didn't have a reasonable oppurtunity to catch it.
All incomplete passes are now intentional grounding. Trajectory is a yard or two off, they were âin the areaâ but since the trajectory was slightly off and they didnât adjust they had no â reasonable opportunityâ with an o not a u .â
Ed Hickland wroteHe did not get out of the tackle box and the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage and from my understanding of the rule that criteria must be met.
He actually is outside the tackle box. His feet are inside it but the ball is not. The TE Humphrey is on the right hash at the start of the play the ball is thrown from the right hash⌠tackles are inside of TEâs so hence, outside tackle box. Close call, but âobviousâ to JasonTX. Itâs amazing how that reference point is right there for everyone to see and no one uses it.
JasonTX wroteThat may be true, but the ball also has to cross the neutral zone.
Putting aside being outside the tackle box a receiver in the vicinity trumps not crossing the LOS., itâs a âorâ clause. The ball must cross âooooorâ be in the vicinity of a receiver. So, having met both of the criteria defining what is NOT intentional grounding⌠this isâŚ. Uhhh⌠Uhhh⌠we have to change the call again Alberto that doesnât make any sense either⌠Uhhh how âbout Unsportsmanlike conduct, underhand pass in the end zone, safety. Uhhh⌠wait thatâs totally made up, uhhh unnatural throw in the end zone safety. Wait thatâs weak considering all flips, shovels, tosses, behind the back twist throws are legal. Uhhh that only applies in this case because it was close and cheap and ughhh I know his intent and ughhhhâŚ. Stop âstruuugggggaalingâ Alberto.
Advice to Alberto donât change a bad call to another bad call because itâs more justifiable than the first bad call. Itâs annoying and time consuming to deconstruct. Although it is hilarious.