The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
IG or Not?

Intentionally grounded
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:42pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,564
At this point, who cares?

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
I see.
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 247
Obviously the call was wrong. He can only spike the ball after a hand to hand snap. What kind of discussion are you expecting about something that was obviously wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:55pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
The coach is wrong, it isn't a 15 yard penalty.

And in NCAA this is legal.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2011, 01:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra View Post
Obviously the call was wrong. He can only spike the ball after a hand to hand snap. What kind of discussion are you expecting about something that was obviously wrong?
Or the description of the play was wrong... all we have is the coachs' comments on the play. Got video?

Kind of stupid of the offended coach to get an, um .... 13 yard (!!!!???) unsportsmanlike penalty at that moment to make this an easier field goal, don't you think?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2011, 02:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
The offensive coach makes it sound like it wasn't a spike but more of a shovel pass to a RB that is not completed. That is a huge judgement call that you would have to see in person or on film to have any kind of opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2011, 03:14pm
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Why am I not surprised that a coach, "with NFHS rule book firmly in hand", doesn't know that the penalty for IG is five yards (+ LOD), not fifteen?

And on top of that, they got a 15-yard USC penalty that allowed a shorter FG attempt?

Good grief.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 12, 2011, 05:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1 View Post
Why am I not surprised that a coach, "with NFHS rule book firmly in hand", doesn't know that the penalty for IG is five yards (+ LOD), not fifteen?

And on top of that, they got a 15-yard USC penalty that allowed a shorter FG attempt?

Good grief.
Recheck that math ... apparently this USC was the very special 13 yard variety.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 13, 2011, 04:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 220
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (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
  #12 (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
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:32am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
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
  #14 (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 03:29am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1