Intentional Grounding Question

[CT1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK. Do you have a question?

I do:

Why was the penalty administered from the previous spot instead the spot where the pass was released?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CT1

I do:

Why was the penalty administered from the previous spot instead the spot where the pass was released?

Good question. Perhaps the spot of the foul was at or beyond the basic spot. Perhaps the report is incorrect. Perhaps the crew screwed it up.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jstewart

Last night we a 4th and goal at the 7. "A" lines up for a FG. The kicker takes the snap and in an attempt to do a fake. throws the ball into the end zone where no receiver was in the area. R ruled it intentionally grounding and penalized A from the previous and awarded the ball to B.

An Illegal Forward Pass is considered a foul during a "running" play, and the penalty is enforced from the end of the run (which is the spot of the pass). This 5 yard penalty includes loss of down (right to repeat the down).

Since the pass was thrown during a 4th down, the defense is awarded possession after administering the 5 yard penalty.

[buckrog64]

So if you have A's ball 4th and 10 on B's 40 and A commits OPI (assuming incomplete pass), would you move ball to A's 45 and the 1/10 for B? Different scenario: Loss of down penalty negates opportunity to replay down on a try, but do you still penalize yardage on ensuing free kick? Thanks.

[buckrog64]

Looks like 5.2 has something to say about this area. I'll look at that a little more closely.

[Tom.OH]

Originally Posted by ajmc

An Illegal Forward Pass is considered a foul during a "running" play, and the penalty is enforced from the end of the run (which is the spot of the pass). This 5 yard penalty includes loss of down (right to repeat the down).

Since the pass was thrown during a 4th down, the defense is awarded possession after administering the 5 yard penalty.

On a couple occasions I have been telling the captain to take the penalty as his coach was yelling to decline it! I then yelled the options so the coach could hear it. Now we pretty much go to the coach if it is not a standard run of the mill foul.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I fall into two categories: Official (basketball only for now), and Broadcaster.

Tonight I was broadcasting a couple of high school games to kickoff the season here in Illinois, and I saw essentially the same play called two different ways.

Play 1: The QB was in the pistol formation (ie, not under center) with the clock winding down in the second quarter. He gets the snap from center and immediately spikes it. One of the officials throws a flag, and they enforce intentional grounding.

Play 2: The QB was in the shotgun, clock winding down in the second quarter. He gets the snap from center, and spikes it. No flag.

Different officiating crew for each game.

Can you guys help me out?

CANADIAN RULING:

Legal.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It's intentional grounding in both situations. Per the rule cited above, he must take a direct hand to hand snap from the snapper and spike it. Also, if he fumbles the snap, he can't legally spike it.

This is why I love this forum. We had that situation last night. Our QB was in the shotgun and spiked the ball to stop the clock. Ref threw the flag for intentional grounding. Before reading this thread I had no idea there was a difference in the rule between a snap from under center and a snap from shotgun. Because of this thread, I was able to get it right on the radio.

Now, why is there a difference? Why would a rule allow a spike to stop the clock from a direct hand to hand snap but not a shotgun snap if both spikes happen immediately after the quarterback gets the ball?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

Now, why is there a difference? Why would a rule allow a spike to stop the clock from a direct hand to hand snap but not a shotgun snap if both spikes happen immediately after the quarterback gets the ball?

Because if you allow the QB to spike the ball in the shotgun, then you are essentially allowing him to spike the football under any circumstance. He could take the snap, take three steps, decide there's no receiver open and the spike the ball to kill the play. Therefore, he must take a direct hand to hand snap and spike it immediately.

Why would you want to spike it in shotgun? With precious seconds ticking away, a spike from gun is going to take longer than hand to hand.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jstewart

Last night we a 4th and goal at the 7. "A" lines up for a FG. The kicker takes the snap and in an attempt to do a fake. throws the ball into the end zone where no receiver was in the area. R ruled it intentionally grounding and penalized A from the previous and awarded the ball to B.

Sounds like an incorrect ruling to me. No receiver in the area is a requirement for IG -- but not the only requirement.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sounds like an incorrect ruling to me. No receiver in the area is a requirement for IG -- but not the only requirement.

We don't have enough info to tell whether it was correct or incorrect.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Because if you allow the QB to spike the ball in the shotgun, then you are essentially allowing him to spike the football under any circumstance. He could take the snap, take three steps, decide there's no receiver open and the spike the ball to kill the play. Therefore, he must take a direct hand to hand snap and spike it immediately.

But that doesn't answer "Why would a rule allow a spike to stop the clock from a direct hand to hand snap but not a shotgun snap if both spikes happen immediately after the quarterback gets the ball?"

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why would you want to spike it in shotgun? With precious seconds ticking away, a spike from gun is going to take longer than hand to hand.

Because the team lines up in the shotgun for every snap. The QB does not line up under center then move to the shotgun.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

But that doesn't answer "Why would a rule allow a spike to stop the clock from a direct hand to hand snap but not a shotgun snap if both spikes happen immediately after the quarterback gets the ball?"

There is no one here who can tell you why the NFHS Football Rules Committee wrote the rule, 48 states then voted on and approved it as written. The NFL originated the rule and has the same requirement. Perhaps they simply copied their rule. I don't know. I offered you a rational possibility.

Feel free to write the NFHS if you desire.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There is no one here who can tell you why the NFHS Football Rules Committee wrote the rule, 48 states then voted on and approved it as written. The NFL originated the rule and has the same requirement.

Probably you're referring to 8-3-1 note 3. However, although it appears to be there as an exception to 8-3-1 intentional grounding, it is not. Rather, it's an intended cross-reference (in NFL's unfortunately not inimitable way)that's actually a misplaced exception to 4-3-10 on timing. NFL long ago dropped (or maybe never adopted, I'm not sure) the general prohibition on grounding the ball to conserve time, but relatively recently put in this narrower prohibition. Their penalty is administered as a delay of game with a 10 sec. runoff, while NCAA's & Fed's is under intentional grounding. So the rules are superficially similar and in a sense one is a copy of the other, but they have different hx: NFL's is a relatively recent restriction, while NCAA's & Fed's are an even more recent exception to an old prohibition.

The rule is widely recognized in Fed to discriminate against teams that don't use a handed snap.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Probably you're referring to 8-3-1 note 3. However, although it appears to be there as an exception to 8-3-1 intentional grounding, it is not. Rather, it's an intended cross-reference (in NFL's unfortunately not inimitable way)that's actually a misplaced exception to 4-3-10 on timing. NFL long ago dropped (or maybe never adopted, I'm not sure) the general prohibition on grounding the ball to conserve time, but relatively recently put in this narrower prohibition. Their penalty is administered as a delay of game with a 10 sec. runoff, while NCAA's & Fed's is under intentional grounding. So the rules are superficially similar and in a sense one is a copy of the other, but they have different hx: NFL's is a relatively recent restriction, while NCAA's & Fed's are an even more recent exception to an old prohibition.

The rule is widely recognized in Fed to discriminate against teams that don't use a handed snap.

Robert, I really have no idea what you're talking about, partner. Are these NFHS rule references?

I was addressing the NFHS requirement that there be a hand to hand snap before spiking the ball to conserve time. I understood that a hand to hand snap is required in the NFL as well and they did originate this exception.

According to a previous post, a hand to hand snap is not required under NCAA rules.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.