![]() |
|
|||
Intentional grounding with tipped pass
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) |
|
|||
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) |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Article 8 – Deliberate Grounding
__________________
Pope Francis |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Pope Francis |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Pope Francis |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intentional Grounding | DFinsFootball54 | Football | 8 | Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:15am |
Mechanics on a tipped pass | alabamabluezebra | Football | 6 | Wed Aug 17, 2005 02:27am |
Intentional Grounding | MI Official | Football | 4 | Fri Sep 24, 2004 01:57pm |
Intentional Grounding | mklover | Football | 7 | Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:43am |
Intentional Grounding or Backward Pass | Ed Hickland | Football | 8 | Thu Oct 16, 2003 09:33pm |