Also, doesn't the "outside the hash marks" delineation still apply?
Just happened in the Broncos/Falcons game. Manning pulled down while throwing, no receiver anywhere near where ball landed. No intentional grounding. Correct call.
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 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.
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:
As has already been mentioned by others, this (Haloti Ngata's hit) is why it was not intentional grounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by NFL RuleBook Rule 8: Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble; Section 2: 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.