IG or Not?

[bigjohn]

Intentionally grounded

[JRutledge]

At this point, who cares?

Peace

[bigjohn]

I see.

[Cobra]

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?

[Welpe]

The coach is wrong, it isn't a 15 yard penalty.

And in NCAA this is legal.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Cobra

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?

[bisonlj]

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.

[CT1]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

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.

[jchamp]

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.

[PSU213]

Originally Posted by jchamp

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.

[BoBo]

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.

[Rich]

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.