Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Also, doesn't the "outside the hash marks" delineation still apply?
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Just happened in the Broncos/Falcons game. Manning pulled down while throwing, no receiver anywhere near where ball landed. No intentional grounding. Correct call.
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SC_Raven_Fan
Also, doesn't the "outside the hash marks" delineation still apply?
the hash marks have nothing to do with anything
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
from what I understand even if the refs believe it was intentional grounding after watching the replay they could not call it intentional grounding because it was already ruled a fumble and no official threw a flag during the play as seeing intentional grounding. The only flag that i think can be added or taken away by review is for to many players on the field
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonRaven
Wow. SMH.
HR, do you think we could impose a 4 day quiet period (Thursday) for some posters after a loss. Seriously
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RavenusMaximus
You know why I know it was intentional grounding. Because Vicks body was at a 20 degree angle with his ass two inches from the ground before his arm starts moving forward. That has nothing to do with McCoy and trajectory. It's all about him trying to avoid the sack.
Big difference between intentional grounding and intentionally trying to avoid a loss via a sack. While Vick knew that pass wasn't going to reach a target, the fact is that there was a target in the general direction of the throw. Anyone griping about that call is grasping at straws.
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
alien bird
Big difference between intentional grounding and intentionally trying to avoid a loss via a sack. While Vick knew that pass wasn't going to reach a target, the fact is that there was a target in the general direction of the throw. Anyone griping about that call is grasping at straws.
Eh. I watched it on tv and didn't see a receiver in the area. I wasn't "grasping at straws" when I thought intentional grounding may have been a good call, and as Ravor and others have described it, I think it was a discretionary non-call by the "officials."
Fine.
I don't think it was a big deal either way on that flag. What fascinated me on the play was the stupendously foolish original ruling that it was a fumble, when the head referee was right there on top of it to get the call right the first time.
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raveninwoodlawn
Well, there we have it.
Maybe you should be arguing that the rules are stupid instead of arguing that the ruling itself was incorrect...
Uh, no.
How does your logic even make sense? First of all, what I think of the tuck rule has nothing to do with intentional grounding- they're two separate topics- I just told you what I think.
2nd- I have no problem with the definition of "intentional grounding" Was Vick "avoiding a sack"- absolutely. Receiver in the area- no. outside the tackles- probably not- and even if he was, did it reach the line of scrimmage- no. Therefore = INTENTIONAL GROUNDING
just b/c I don't LIKE the tuck rule doesn't mean that I said they interpereted it incorrectly. So again, what's the point of asking the question?
And how does your argument have any logic?
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cbaywolf
Uh, no.
How does your logic even make sense? First of all, what I think of the tuck rule has nothing to do with intentional grounding- they're two separate topics- I just told you what I think.
2nd- I have no problem with the definition of "intentional grounding" Was Vick "avoiding a sack"- absolutely. Receiver in the area- no. outside the tackles- probably not- and even if he was, did it reach the line of scrimmage- no. Therefore = INTENTIONAL GROUNDING
just b/c I don't LIKE the tuck rule doesn't mean that I said they interpereted it incorrectly. So again, what's the point of asking the question?
And how does your argument have any logic?
NFL Rules pertaining to intentional grounding:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFL RuleBook Rule 8: Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble; Section 2: Intentional Grounding
Article 1 Definition. It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage
because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. A
realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that lands in the direction and the vicinity of an
originally eligible receiver.
Item 1: Passer or Ball Outside Tackle Position. Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer,
who is outside, or has been outside, the tackle position throws a forward pass that lands at or beyond
the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including
when the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or endline). If a loose ball leaves the area
bordered by the tackles, this area no longer exists; if the ball is recovered, all intentional grounding
rules apply as if the passer is outside this area.
Item 2: Physical Contact. Intentional grounding should not be called if:
(a) the passer initiates his passing motion toward an eligible receiver and then is significantly affected
by physical contact from a defensive player that causes the pass to land in an area that is not in the
direction and vicinity of an eligible receiver; or
(b) the passer is out of the pocket, and his passing motion is significantly affected by physical contact
from a defensive player that causes the ball to land short of the line of scrimmage.
As has already been mentioned by others, this (Haloti Ngata's hit) is why it was not intentional grounding.
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Seems like a judgement call then. IMO, he wasn't attempting to pass to a receiver, but I can see where the ref's wouldn't call it.
The Ravens shouldn't have let them drive down there to begin with like a hot knife through butter.
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brtnder81
from what I understand even if the refs believe it was intentional grounding after watching the replay they could not call it intentional grounding because it was already ruled a fumble and no official threw a flag during the play as seeing intentional grounding. The only flag that i think can be added or taken away by review is for to many players on the field
I believe thats correct. Since none originally called it that, it cant be called afterward upon review. Penalties are not reviewable. So even if i do think it was IG, theres nothing they could do about it. Although, with the above listed it seems it cant be IG, which means the only reason im thinking it should have been, is because it was incorrectly called before, at least occasionally to the point that my understanding was blurry.