Quote:
Originally Posted by MJT
Not 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 that’s impossible he didn’t even look at him. He has only thrown an arrow route under a slant what 2000 times in his life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonTX
In this play that receiver wasn’t 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 “in the vicinity,” if that isn’t? It would have to hit the receiver or be a complete pass to be any closer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonTX
Looked 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 “in the area” but since the trajectory was slightly off and they didn’t adjust they had no “ reasonable opportunity” with an o not a u .”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Hickland
He 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 TE’s so hence, outside tackle box. Close call, but “obvious” to JasonTX. It’s amazing how that reference point is right there for everyone to see and no one uses it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonTX
That 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., it’s a “or” clause. The ball must cross “ooooor” be in the vicinity of a receiver. So, having met both of the criteria defining what is NOT intentional grounding… this is…. Uhhh… Uhhh… we have to change the call again Alberto that doesn’t make any sense either… Uhhh how ‘bout Unsportsmanlike conduct, underhand pass in the end zone, safety. Uhhh… wait that’s totally made up, uhhh unnatural throw in the end zone safety. Wait that’s 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 ughhhh…. Stop “struuugggggaaling” Alberto.
Advice to Alberto don’t change a bad call to another bad call because it’s more justifiable than the first bad call. It’s annoying and time consuming to deconstruct. Although it is hilarious.
Tue Nov 11, 2008, 05:10am
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
