:rolleyes:

First of all don't group your post with the others to try and win majority support for yourself because I only referred to you and your ranting about "Ram fans getting over it." What that has to do with it is beside me. I thought this forum was about educating one self if they went about it in an adult like way. Furthermore what I don't accept is what appears to be the rule being re-written as needed. Sure there may be a sub section someplace in the NFL rule book that says what you are claiming which is partially what I am asking. So far there has been little posted here to over rule the only explanation of intentional grounding that I know was printed by the NFL. Until there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary of what the NFL says in the Rules digest I have to go with what the NFL says. Also the pocket area is well defined by its explanation of

"Pocket Area: Applies from a point two yards outside of either offensive tackle and includes the tight end if he drops off the line of scrimmage to pass protect. Pocket extends longitudinally behind the line back to offensive team’s own end line."

This description of the pocket area is from the digest of rules and I don't see any wiggle room. If it is wrong then show me. If it is wrong then don't get upset with fans for being ignorant about the rules because obviously the NFL wants it that way.


According to what I read it says nothing about a receiver being in the area when the ball is thrown. Either this is a ruling that I don't know about or it is coming out of your own rule book. The rule distinctly says that "the receiver must have a realistic chance to catch the football." It does not say "If there is a receiver in the area when the ball was thrown. What area? thats just a little vague don't you think?

One poster said there was not an immanent amount of pressure from the defense and while I throughly disagree that is his opinion and I respect that. He didn't take a shot by saying "get over it". Perhaps you understand now. I hope so because I very much dislike arguing on message boards.

Here is something that could explain it.

This is interesting in that on the surface it appears that there was no defined pocket area or at least not one that is written in stone. A better way to put it would be such as every umpire has his own strike zone, I guess. Is this available on the net to read?
Thanks this is very interesting.

As if this weren't confusing enough I just found what is claimed to be the official rule book and it states;

"POCKET AREA
The Pocket Area applies from the normal tight-end position on each side of the center and extends backwards to the offensive team's own goal line."

???????????????

Ram, one of the things you need to realize is that unlike you, no one on this board is biased except for you.

I would say it is not IG as the outside receiver was in the area at the time of the throw and if he had turned he possibly could have caught the pass. That is where the basis of "running the wrong route" comes into play. Yes Brady was still in the pocket and yes he had to throw it or he would have been sacked but still no IG.

Keep in mind ramtime, it is a pretty vague rule that is wide open for interpetation as to whether or not a receiver is in the area. It really has to be as you cannot say he has to be x- number of yards close to the ball as that becomes subjective too.

When I saw the play live I thought IG but then I saw replay and felt it was a good no call. On a play like that fans are the only ones that have that replay option. As an R I probably would throw the flag and then discuss it with my wingmen on that side.

Then I must be interpreting the rule wrong. When I read (Realistic chance at catching the football) in the rule at NFL.com I assumed that it meant "Realistic chance at catching the football" If an official can assume that a receiver ran the wrong route or erred by not changing his route due to a blitz by the defense that there is no harm, no foul. Under this interpretation then there is no intentional grounding in the NFL. Every part of the rule has been covered by you guys and I appreciate it very much. While I don't think that he was throwing the ball to anyone the best argument in my judgment is he was trying to throw it to the receiver that did the post route instead of the out to the sidelines. I absolutely do not buy that he was out of the pocket nor that he was not under pressure from the rush however given that time was an issue, I guess it is a pretty fair argument that he was going with a sideline pass. It still however does not entirely explain what they mean by "realistic chance to catch the ball." Since my last post I have acquired the official rule book and I will be doing some reading on IG along with other penalties. From what I have seen of the rule book so far, it looks extremely complicated so wish me luck.

I don't argue that I am biased however can you say that this play is not worth questioning? and if so may have had an effect on the outcome of the game? NE would have been facing a 2nd and 20 from their own 30 with 29 seconds left and no timeouts. Their OC stated that if the previous play had not gone for a 1st down they would have killed the clock for overtime. So one has to conclude that one down later from the same spot on the field where they would have killed the clock, they would have undoubtedly killed the clock had this been called. This is why I want to understand the ruling. Do I believe that this was grounding? Yes, however after this discussion I am not quite as sure.

Walt, on the Basketball board, we refer to such posters as a "fanboy." Evidently, they're now going to show up the Football board.

Ram, first of all, if you're going to dispute what's being said at least get it right. I never said anything to you about 'getting over it'. Sorry, different poster.

Secondly, I'm not trying to win favor with anyone else here on the board. I've said enough dumb things in the past and have been called on it, just like anyone else.

Are you aware that every NFL official is graded on every play? They told when they should have thrown flags and didn't, and they're told when they throw bad flags. Each official is required to review that week's video and they're asked to comment. That's an awful lot of scrutiny. I don't know how many of us could withstand having every second of our time on the job being video taped and evaluated.

Finally, ask any official and they'll tell you, there's a huge difference in knowing the rules and actually offiating a game.

RamTime, if you remember, I said I had the "official" NFL rules from a current NFL official. That is the 2004 rule book, and it states ""POCKET AREA - The Pocket Area applies from the normal tight-end position on each side of the center and extends backwards to the offensive team's own goal line." What I stated late last night was the NEW RULE CHANGES FOR 2005 which says "Rule 3-24, definition of pocket area states, "The pocket area applies from the normal tackle position on each side of the center and extends backwards to the offensive team's own end line." It continutes to state as the effect of this rule change "There will be one definition of the pocket area for every play that covers intentional grounding, illegal contact, and an illegal cut block."

The last part of the above paragraph state that the NEW pocket definition will be used any time the "pocket" is referenced in a rule. Now even though the pocket area was different last year than this year, in the section of intentional grounding for last year "rule 8-3-1 stated that for IG the pocket was from tackle to tackle. So when you state TE to TE above, that is the defn of pocket area, but for IG purposoes in 8-3-1-note #1 is says "outside the tackle," NOT outside the "pocket area." This should clarify where the QB must be to not have IG and how that is different than the defined pocket area for this upcoming 2005 season. With the new rule change, there will be no confusion.

The part that I think you are missing RamTime, that we as officials are stating is; IF we feel the receiver broke the route the wrong way, and that is why the pass did not have a realistic chance of being caught, then we do NOT have intentional grounding.

I looked at the 2nd clip over and over, and if you stop it at different points I think it shows some interesting things. If you look at when Brady started to lift his arm to throw the pass the receiver is at the 49 yard line, and if you stop it at the very end of the play, you will see that the ball ends up on the sideline at that yardline. It looks to me that if the receiver would have broke off his receiver on an "out route" it would have been perfectly timed, and probably completed. <b>Those are factors that the crew discusses when they all get together to see if a foul really did, or did not occur.</b> The NFL officials get together to make sure someone did not have a better view or better angle than any other level of officials.

I know fans often feel that the officials all getting together as being unsure, but they are just making sure they get it right, which they do OVER 99% of the time, and that is a number that is statistically correct based on the "grading" of "each NFL official on each play."

Now will they make mistakes, yes, we all do, but over 99% is pretty damn good!!! I, for one, can handle this less than 1% being wrong, even when it effects my favorite team.

RamTime, I appreciate that you came here to ask our opinions. Just to add to what has been said:

While not specifically stated in the code anywhere, INTENTIONAL grounding must mean that the passer intentionally threw the ball incomplete. It is commonly interpretted that if something happens to cause an eligible receiver to be out of the area of the pass through no fault of the passer, then no foul is called.



[Edited by mikesears on Jul 11th, 2005 at 08:57 AM]

Was a chunk of this post removed, or am I missing part of my brain???? I didn't think anything was even close to that bad to be removed, was it?

Huh?

there was a lot of discussion on this topic between the 11:48 AM reply I made yesterday, and the 7:17 AM one by Mike Sears today. I was removed somehow. There was nothing bad in it.