Intentional grounding with tipped pass

[Barcelona]

NCAA rules.

Snap on A15. QB is overthrown, ball is at A-5. Under pressure, QB throws to A7, where no eligible Team A receiver is (only OL members). To this, clear thing - safety.

However, make "small" change - Pass is (intentionally) tipped by B50 at A5 (tipping of the ball hasn´t change trajectory of the ball, ball was sinking and there was no doubt, it wouldn´t cross line of scrimmage). A70 (became eligible) catches the ball at A5 and let say, is downed immediately. Is this still an intentionally grounding and therefore safety?

Pass was definitely thrown where no (originally) elibigle receivers were, however landed at spot, where eligible receiver was and moreover, it was complete, not incomplete pass. With other words, is it necessary for ruling an intentionally grounding foul, that the pass is incomplete? (There could be another scenario, where the pass would be intercepted by B50)

[LMSANS]

Your calling a safety for a pass from A5?

[Barcelona]

As, all other spots and players are described without a dash, that A-5 (and not A5 as you have written) means A minus five...

[CO ump]

Snap on A15. QB scrambles into EZ and Under pressure throws to the 7, where no eligible Team A receiver is (only OL members). Safety

However, make "small" change - Pass is (intentionally) tipped by B50 at the 5 (tipping of the ball hasn´t change trajectory of the ball, ball was sinking and there was no doubt, it wouldn´t cross line of scrimmage). A70 (became eligible) catches the ball at the 5 and let say, is downed immediately. Is this still intentional grounding and therefore a safety?

Pass was definitely thrown where no (originally) elibigle receivers were, however landed at spot, where eligible receiver was and moreover, it was complete, not incomplete pass. With other words, is it necessary for ruling an intentionally grounding foul, that the pass is incomplete? (There could be another scenario, where the pass would be intercepted by B50)

[Texas Aggie]

I'd have to see it, but its unlikely I'm calling IG on a tipped pass unless there's just nobody in that zip code.

[Robert Goodman]

Interesting. IIRC the Canadian rules refer not to "grounding" but an "intentional incomplete pass". I don't remember, and don't have handy enough to bother, whether the wording of any of the USAn rules require the pass to be incomplete to be penalized, though I suspect so.

But let's just look at the incentives. If a player of the defense tips the ball, that would seem to satisfy the intention of the rule that the passing team put the ball up for grabs. If the defense "saves" an incompletion and it turns out to be complete by the passing team, doesn't it seem that the defense took their chances by tipping the ball as they would with a pass directed anywhere, and therefore that they should not be able to benefit by an intentional grounding call? We already have the anomalous situation in USAn rules of a ball's being tipped by the defense as making players of A eligible to receive a forward pass who would not have been eligible otherwise, so it would seem the rules makers are willing to have the opponents of the passing team be able to "save" the passing team from certain balls that would've been incomplete, so why not also from an intentional grounding penalty?

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Interesting. IIRC the Canadian rules refer not to "grounding" but an "intentional incomplete pass".

Article 8 – Deliberate Grounding
a) Field of Play
If the passer in the field of play deliberately throws the ball out of bounds, or to an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver, apparently to avoid a loss of distance, penalize as for an offside pass.
Penalty: 1.2D – LD AT POP, 3D – LB POP.

b) End Zone
If the passer in the end zone deliberately throws the ball out of bounds, or to an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver, penalize as follows:
Penalty: 1.2.3D – Safety touch to Team B, or option to decline the score, and accept the play as an incomplete pass.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Article 8 – Deliberate Grounding

Well, I remembered one of the words was different!

a) Field of Play
If the passer in the field of play deliberately throws the ball out of bounds, or to an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver, apparently to avoid a loss of distance, penalize as for an offside pass.
Penalty: 1.2D – LD AT POP, 3D – LB POP.

b) End Zone
If the passer in the end zone deliberately throws the ball out of bounds, or to an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver, penalize as follows:
Penalty: 1.2.3D – Safety touch to Team B, or option to decline the score, and accept the play as an incomplete pass.

That last implies it has to be an incomplete pass, but doesn't come out & say it. The wording "to an area where", as opposed to "toward an area where", implies that it gets to such a place.

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Well, I remembered one of the words was different!


That last implies it has to be an incomplete pass, but doesn't come out & say it. The wording "to an area where", as opposed to "toward an area where", implies that it gets to such a place.

Robert

I could not disagree less!

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But let's just look at the incentives. If a player of the defense tips the ball, that would seem to satisfy the intention of the rule that the passing team put the ball up for grabs. If the defense "saves" an incompletion and it turns out to be complete by the passing team, doesn't it seem that the defense took their chances by tipping the ball as they would with a pass directed anywhere, and therefore that they should not be able to benefit by an intentional grounding call? We already have the anomalous situation in USAn rules of a ball's being tipped by the defense as making players of A eligible to receive a forward pass who would not have been eligible otherwise, so it would seem the rules makers are willing to have the opponents of the passing team be able to "save" the passing team from certain balls that would've been incomplete, so why not also from an intentional grounding penalty?

Robert

We cannot rule this way. If we did interpret that ineligible receivers become eligible when Team B touches the ball and so intentional grounding does not apply if a Team A previously ineligible receiver was in the area then this means that the quarterback could thrown the ball against the legs of the oncoming defenders so long as there was lineman in the area.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

We cannot rule this way. If we did interpret that ineligible receivers become eligible when Team B touches the ball and so intentional grounding does not apply if a Team A previously ineligible receiver was in the area then this means that the quarterback could thrown the ball against the legs of the oncoming defenders so long as there was lineman in the area.

Haven't seen ya here in awhile.