The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchamp View Post
It sounds like this comes down to the WH not being able to get into the QB's head and determine whether a pass thrown underhanded (shovel pass) towards an eligible receiver was intentionally thrown to save time.
There's a couple of possible tests that can be used to assess intent. If the ball is thrown directly at a receiver's back, thrown to the front of his body and he makes no attempt to stop it from hitting the ground, or thrown to his feet where he couldn't get to it, then there is a good case for intentional grounding.
I'm not buying the "we work in pistol formation" argument. There is nothing that stops a team from practicing the hand-to-hand snap, in order to know how to execute the mechanic that is explicitly described in the rules as the exception to an act that would normally be a foul. That would be like me telling my boss I can't drive the manual transmission work truck because my personal car is an automatic.
The article referenced is baised, and not all that well written. It's a pronoun soup that hurts to try to decipher, and the writer has a very obvious perception that the call on the field was wrong.
The the shovel pass hits the FB on the back when he did not turn around for it...and the R flags it for IG...the offensive coach is going to argue that the QB and the FB had different plays in mind, the FB was supposed to turn around and catch it, etc, etc... If that happened it probably was an attempt to ground the ball intentionally, but it's going to almost impossible to justify the call.

As for the article, it sets it all up like QB took a shotgun snap and then spiked it....clearly grounding, end of story. Reading on, the article describes that the QB took a snap in the 'pistol' formation and then threw an incomplete shovel pass. You would bascially have to judge intent from a pass that otherwise did not look like in intentional throw to the ground.
__________________
If the play is designed to fool someone, make sure you aren't the fool.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Indianola, Ia
Posts: 319
In regards the shortened USC penalty yardage the ball was on the 29 yard line. Thus USC penalty would only be half the distance.

Thus only being a 14 1/2 yard penalty.
__________________
"Call what you see and see what you call!"
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:32am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
Look, I'm not a mind-reader. If a passer takes a shotgun snap and throws a shovel pass forward in the vicinity of an eligible receiver and it hits the ground, it's incomplete. It sure doesn't sound like IG from the description of the play -- just sounds like a coach who knows this isn't going to get called by reasonable officials.

I had a similar play on the last play of the half of a second round playoff game. The ball was shoveled forward and landed at the feet of a back. First, the coach wanted me to call this a fumble. Then he wanted grounding. All I could think was -- it's halftime no matter what I call, but in my mind there was no doubt that the pass was an intentional act.

Without video, this thread is pointless.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sat Dec 17, 2011, 10:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post
Look, Without video, this thread is pointless.
Even with video, which can be very helpful with many situations, judging whether a pass is intentionally thrown to be incomplete, is best judged by observing the demeanor of the passer. Seeing the passer's face and eyes, and judging the level of stress and concern he's dealing with when the pass is thrown, is perhaps the best indicator of what his intentions were, and they will rarely be visible on any type of video.

The basic officiating requirement of certainty, directly clashing with the level of doubt directly inherent to this particular occurrence may well be responsible for what may seem to some as a reluctance to assess this penalty.

Last edited by ajmc; Sat Dec 17, 2011 at 10:48am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1