If you do not want to do this or if it is somehow against forum rules I understand and apologize. I realize that not being on the field is a huge disadvantage and you may not want to comment however, I want to show you two short clips both of the same play and give the best assessment that you can. I wish there was a way that nobody could see the others answer however we will just have to trust that it is your own opinion and not persuaded by anyone else's answer.

Given NFL rules Is this intentional grounding?

http://ecosustainablevillage.com/images/grounding.wmv
http://ecosustainablevillage.com/images/grounding2.wmv

Given the following rules from the NFL digest of rules

ntentional grounding of a forward pass is a foul: loss of down and 10 yards from previous spot if passer is in the field of play or loss of down at the spot of the foul if it occurs more than 10 yards behind the line or safety if passer is in his own end zone when ball is released.

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.

Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

No flag. No intentional grounding.

The second clip shows a receiver who was in the area but ran his pattern to the inside. He probably didn't see the blitz coming or he would have run an out pattern.

You Rams fans just can't get over that game can you?!?!?!?! It is JUST a game and it is long over. Move on!

And by the way, Brady was outside the tackle so no foul.

No IG, under any rules that I'm familiar with.

No penalty - there was a receiver in the area when QB released the ball. The receiver may have botched the route.

Receiver in the area does not apply according to the rule above. There was:
1) Immanent amount of pressure from the defense.
2) The receiver had no realistic chance at catching the ball.
3) The pocket includes the TE if he drops off the line to pass protect thus the pocket extended outside the hash marks.

I didn't realize that officials asked the QB and/or receiver if they ran the wrong pattern and if so then no harm no foul regardless of the other evidence that points directly to IG. I guess it's kind of like the no fumble no sack rule that was instated two weeks before that game.

The idea was to understand the ruling and if it was grounding under NFL Rules. Heck even NE fans admit it was grounding. The ruling you give fly's in the face of what is shown in the video. If you don't want to stand up and answer the question with integrity then just say so. I made it clear that if it ruffled anyones feathers I would understand. Furthermore since your answer obviously makes no sense according to the rule posted you must feel like your protecting someone. Well your not because as you stated the game is over. My question was valid and I even offered video to look at. had you simply stated that he was out of the pocket then I would not have replied in this manner. Since this obviously hit a nerve with you, then there must be something underlying such as it was indeed intentional grounding that did not get called.

Anyway Thank you.

Canadian Ruling
 

No flag for intentional grounding - my judgement is based upon a botched route.

As for NFL rules, I say he's out of the pocket, so no foul.

Can you quote the section of the rule book that allows for botched routes? I would be interested in what it says.
Thanks.

I'll give it a go.

The rule states that passer is outside the pocket + the pass crosses the line of scrimmage = no foul

We all agree about the ball crossing the line of scrimmage - right!

The outside the pocket part is a bit more tricky.

Now I'm not a 100% sure about the NFL rule about the pocket. But it is most likely not a dynamic area (doesn't move during the play). As this would - in my opinion - give the defense an unfair advantage.

Now at the right tackles right foot. Then look at the passers feet when he throws the ball. You could easily defend this as being outside the pocket.

There is no TE on the play and there is also no ING.

Pocket Area: Applies from a point two yards outside of either offensive tackle.

I am assuming that "outside" refers to the area of the football field between the tackles and the sidelines. Is this not correct?

Ok RamTime, here is my take. Not that I am an expert, but I do work NFL rules, have the "official" NFL rules from a current NFL official, and have been to two clinics and discussed things with two other NFL officials. You did seem to feel I was ok on my rulings in the other NLF post yesterday.

First off, 9-3-1-note 1 states "IG will not be called a passer, while outside the tackle postion and facing imminent loss of yardage, throws a forward pass that lands near, or beyond the LOS, even if no offensive players have a realistic change to catch the ball (including if the ball lands OOB's over the sideline or endline." So they do not have to be 2 yards outside the tackles, just outside them, which would mean outside their outside shoulder at the snap.

The 2nd clip shows the QB is close to that, would would mean no foul, but even if he is not, I think he throws what is supposed to be a timing pattern, and his receiver turned in, not out. This is what it looks like from when he releases the ball. He does not seem to be in imminent danger to lose yardage yet either in my opinion.

Here is how I would handle it if I were the R on that play. I would process what I say, probably get together with my U, wing, and deep official and discuss it. If we feel he was not in imminent danger, was close to outside the tackle, and it looked like the receiver broke the route the wrong way, I would have NO foul. If any of those three were true, we would have NO foul. I think you could say that all of them may be true, so seeing that play, my vote would be, NO foul.

All the AR's found in my NFL rule book state "to keep from being tackled" and I don't think the QB is worried about that at the point in which he throws the ball. I appears to me that he could step up "into the pocket" and the right tackle would ride his man around the outside, and thus not be sacked.

That is my opinion anyway.

Part of the confusion is the NFL rulebook and all the fan and betting sites include language defining "the pocket area" as the area extending 2 yards outside the tackles. Then the IG rule just mentions "the pocket". And all of us have heard and interpret that to mean tackle to tackle. The rule as enforced seems to limit the pocket to the area tackle to tackle. In fact, in that same Super Bowl, Kurt Warner threw a very similar throw and there was no flag so the play was called consisitently.

From the video clip provided, the actions of that QB look identical to those of many other QBs I have seen on many other Sundays and who were similarily NOT flagged for IG.

Ironically, the new rule changes for the NFL in 2005 give the official "pocket" definition as "the normal tackle positions" and this is to be used in all "pocket" situations to add consistency. I am at my parents, so don't have the new rule number, but know that was one of the new rules for 2005.

You asked and your question was answered. I don't know who you think we're protecting...or do you think we're afraid to say someone missed a call? It's obvious that you have your opinion on this play and just won't accept anything to the contrary.

Simply put, there was a receiver in the area when the ball was thrown. No grounding on this play.

Ok, here is the new rule change regarding the pocket area for 2005. 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."

: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.

Was it this thread or another one? Ramtime posted 4 different threads.

I am 99.9% sure it was this one. There were about 6 posts in between mine yesterday morning, and Mike's this morning. I recognized it right away. Maybe I'm losing it! My wife says that to me all the time.

Did anyone else notice it??? <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZNxmk045AFUS' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_9_134.gif' border=0></a>

The rule book I have states
3-24
SECTION 24


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.

Could this be an old rule book that I have? It was downloaded so no date is apparent. It seems ridiculous for the NFL digest of rules say something different then the official rule book? One would think that they would realize the different interpretations someone could have especially us fans.
We have (The normal tackle positions - which is what television commentators always refer to)
We have (2 yards outside the normal tackle positions)
We have (2 yards outside the normal tackle positions and includes the tight end if he drops off the line to pass protect)

As I said before that is like each umpire having his own strike zone when there are rules that govern the strike zone. Notwithstanding the 2005 rule to make it specific was/is the rule here?

RamTime, if you read my post on page 2, you would see where I said that the pocket area for IG is not the same as the pocket area definition. However, to clearify and make the pocket area consistant in all areas, they made a rule change for 2005. When your SB was played, the pocket area definition was a you stated, but for IG it was still getting "outside the tackle."

Here is what I said on page 2.

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. <b>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. </b>

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. Those are factors that the crew discusses when they all get together to see if a foul really did, or did not occur. 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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MJT
[B]Great Post MJT . But I’ll lay odds that it’s a waist of time trying to reason with this guy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Neil
[B]Thank you so very much. There is an sound explanation after all. Thank you.

Well RamTime, you have showed you can be reasoned with... but I still think you are looking at the Rams games with Blue and Gold glasses.

Take Care,

MJT

In your quest for wisdom and enlightenment (which I do applaud you for), there is something you must keep in mind when studying the rule book:

There are rules, and then you have the application and interpretation of said rules.

You will N O T find all the answer to what should be called and not called in the rule book. When you start out as an official, this is one of the hardest things to get a grasp of. What do you call, and what is not worth calling? The NFL wants those rules to be interpreted and applied a certain way, and this is communicated to the officials at clinics, meetings, bulletins, through video tape and through the grading process. As a fan, you are not privy to these things.

Officials outside the NFL don't get this info either (at least it's very limited), but we have an understanding of how these things work and we understand that the rules as written and the rules in practice are two very different things.

Good luck with your studying. And when you do ask a question, please be prepared for getting an aswer that is not what you thought/hoped. Too often people ask questions, just so they can claim that they are trying to learn, but they are not interestid in learning from the answers they get.

Can we get away from the pocket discussion? I don't think that's relevant here. I believe this was not IG because when Brady threw it, he threw it to where he thought a receiver would be, and to a place where there would be a "reasonable chance for the ball to be caught."

I think Ram is being to strict with this part of the definition. If taken by just the words, anytime Quincy Carter throws a pass, it's IG, as it doesn't have a reasonable chance of being caught.

Anyone want to know what funny is? This is funny!

Thanks I just spit coffee all over myself.

I have a feeling this is going to be one of those questions that are not well defined like I.G. however I honestly do not understand what an illegeal pick is other then it has something to do with receivers crossing close enough to one another to where it its underlying purpose is to either make the DB's colide or some how fool them so that two or more defenders will cover the same receiver leaving another receiver wide open. Any help on this? also I have not found it in the rule book so if you can give the #-#-# I would appreciate it.

The words, "illegal pick" do not appear in the rulebook. That is an announcer's term. I don't believe the proximity of the offensive players has any bearing on this. I belive this falls under rule Rule 8-2-5-Offensive Pass Interference-a thru c.

Actions that constitute offensive PI include but are not limited to:

a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving him or pushing off thus creating separation in an attempt to catch the pass.

c) Driving through a defender who has gained position on the field.




Usually, I see this called when an outside receiver runs a route inside and an inside receiver runs a route outside. The guy going inside obviously blocks for the guy going outside.

What you are calling "illegal pick" is going to be an offensive pass interference call. These pick plays are very common inside the 5 yard line.

REPLY: Regarding an illegal pick (OPI), this is another place where it's absolutely essential to see the <u>entire</u> play. For this to be called properly, the offensive receiver will be most likely be 'hunting' for the defensive back. He will have the d-back in his sights off the line rather than looking back toward the QB. That's why staying on your keys a little longer is incredibly important in the red zone. Too often, you'll see the defender get knocked on his rear, but fail to see the action that preceded it. And you feel the irresistible urge to drop the hankie. It's entirely possible that the offensive receiver was running a legitimate route looking for the ball and just collided with the defender in nothing more than incidental contact--no foul. You need to watch the offensive receiver come off the line and see his intent. Usually, when a pick (OPI) is called for, you'll see the receiver altering his 'route' to make sure that he contacts the defender. Two other things to remember: (1) there's got to be contact for this to be called. If the defender sees it coming and stops, or alters his path, to avoid the contact, it's NOT a pick and there is no foul, and (2) unless a legal forward pass is thrown beyond the neutral zone, it can't be OPI.

So you can not have an illegal pick without contact? Would pushing off be considered an illegal pick?

I am not asking for any purpose other then I simply do not know.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RamTime
So you can not have an illegal pick without contact?

Contact is required to have pass interference.

Pushing off is considered OPI.


Keep in mind the rulebook does not phrase a foul as an "illegal pick".

REPLY: While pushing off is still a form of offensive pass interference, it can't really be classified as a 'pick' in the strictest sense of the word. Picks are generally intentional acts by one receiver to free up <u>another</u> receiver--not himself.

I see. Now I understand why you guys say it is an announcers term. I'm guessing when the referee huddle takes place terms such as illegal pick generally are not used and maybe not pushing off either. It's all covered as OPI.