Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 106
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,173
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!



    Quote Originally Posted by Mista T View Post
    Huh?

    I have yet to talk to another Ravens fan who didn't see it as intentional grounding. Vick's actions were fully in accord with the NFL rulebook definition of intentional grounding:




    This wasn't even close call. I was not a bit surprised that the fumble call was reversed, but fully expected to see the intentional grounding call made after the review.
    Yeah. I agree with you. Technically you can't throw a flag on a play that is reversed so I wasn't surprised there. However, the fact that they called it a fumble to begin with was pretty dumb.




  2. #32

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by GOTA View Post
    A pee wee football ref wouldn't rule that ball a fumble. It doesn't get much clearer than that
    Unless of course you want to remove the possibility of calling it intentional grounding by calling a fumble.
    Just sayin.
    If you break the rules you can't make the rules.
    - Remove Coach Tomlin from the NFL Competition committee.




  3. #33

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Fumbles can't go forward?

    Everyone at the bar I was at yesterday thought it was a fumble. Once we saw the replay though, it was clear we were wrong.
    You all must have been doing a lot of drinking in that bar then, because I and everyone I talked to said they could see it was intentional grounding the first time. I was surprised when they said it was a fumble.




  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,544
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    When a guy is being hit, the force of the hit can COMPLETELY change the trajectory of the throw. You can't call that intentional grounding.
    That would only really apply if there was a receiver in the vicinity, and there wasn't. He wasn't attempting to get the ball to a receiver, that was pretty clear. It should have either been called intentional grounding, or a sack.




  5. #35

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by pslholder96 View Post
    Yesterday was a good reminder on how much we should be missing the refs currently on strike. That was an unecessary call and clearly an incomplete pass. The game dragged on way too long. The call on Jacoby was definately questionable in light of the fact that the Eagles DB were mugging our receivers all day.
    I respectfully disagree. So far the replacements have pretty much made honest mistakes. So far they have made only a couple highly questionable calls or blatant non calls that have indirectly affected the outcome of a game - Something the regular refs did pretty darn frequently in my humble opinion.

    Even yesterday, the Ravens could have gone down the field to score the winning field goal with 1:42 remaining but Mr. Flacco was too inaccurate on that drive and missed a couple of fairly easy throws.

    That doesn't totally forgive the replacements for helping put the Ravens in that position. They missed a blatant drag down PI call on a long pass to Torrie Smith that certainly looked like catchable for a big gain or a TD but the non call stopped the drive. Add to that the phony fumble/intentional grounding non call, the push off called on Jones' would-be TD catch when the defender had his hands on him the last 10 yards, and the illegal contact called when the ball was clearly in the air and should have been PI, can very definitely put a team in an offensive funk that is tough to get out of.

    But folks i implore you to search your memories. The mistakes the replacements are making now are nothing like the horrendous ticky tack calls or blatant non calls made precisely at the most critical time in the game that have directly affected the outcome of the contest by the likes of regulars Anderson, Carey, Coleman, and Winter and backed up by the NFL's yes man Mr. Perierra.

    Some of the calls and non calls by the "regulars" have been so bad they made me consider the question: "Is the NFL actually fixing games?"

    So far the mistakes made by the replacements look to be from inexperience. For the most part it looks like they are trying to stay out of the business of really affecting a game and let the players play. That of course is a fine line.

    I think we need more of a body of work to look at for the "replacements", but some of these "regulars" have screwed up enough in the most questionable fashion as to affect the integrity of the game. They need not return if and when the strike is resolved imhao.
    If you break the rules you can't make the rules.
    - Remove Coach Tomlin from the NFL Competition committee.




  6. #36

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mista T View Post
    Huh?

    I have yet to talk to another Ravens fan who didn't see it as intentional grounding. Vick's actions were fully in accord with the NFL rulebook definition of intentional grounding:




    This wasn't even close call. I was not a bit surprised that the fumble call was reversed, but fully expected to see the intentional grounding call made after the review.
    There are numerous ones in this thread and on this board T.

    And again, if Flacco for instance takes a 7 step drop that takes him 10 yards past the LOS, and gets hit while throwing the ball and the ball only goes3 or 4 yards forward, they don't call that intentional grounding because the hit impacted where the ball went.




  7. #37

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by alienrace View Post
    That would only really apply if there was a receiver in the vicinity, and there wasn't. He wasn't attempting to get the ball to a receiver, that was pretty clear. It should have either been called intentional grounding, or a sack.
    McCoy is out in the flat by the sideline. No, the ball doesn't get close to McCoy, but that's because Vick was being hit when he throws the ball. There is a reverse angle from behind Vick where you can see McCoy's feet at the top of the screen and that Vick's arm is clearly moving in that direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn
    When a guy is being hit, the force of the hit can COMPLETELY change the trajectory of the throw. You can't call that intentional grounding.
    Agreed. I didn't think it was anything close to Grounding. There have been plenty of instances where a QB has been hit while releasing the ball, the ball ends up landing nowhere near any receivers and it's not called grounding. And, shouldn't be.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ellicott City
    Posts
    306

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    There are numerous ones in this thread and on this board T.

    And again, if Flacco for instance takes a 7 step drop that takes him 10 yards past the LOS, and gets hit while throwing the ball and the ball only goes3 or 4 yards forward, they don't call that intentional grounding because the hit impacted where the ball went.
    Yes, but the majority of the time that happens, a quarterback is hit in the back from his blindside, or doesn't see it coming, and he's not throwing the ball "to avoid a sack".

    In yesterday's instance, that was CLEARLY the ONLY thing Vick was trying to do was AVOID A SACK! That pass wasn't going near anyone. Like i said, usually a quarterback is getting blinded, and the ball may flutter out sideways- and that is NOT grounding- Vick's was completely differenent as he was just throwing the ball before his ass touched the ground. That *is* why the intentional grounding rule was created.




  9. #39

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by cbaywolf View Post
    Yes, but the majority of the time that happens, a quarterback is hit in the back from his blindside, or doesn't see it coming, and he's not throwing the ball "to avoid a sack".

    In yesterday's instance, that was CLEARLY the ONLY thing Vick was trying to do was AVOID A SACK! That pass wasn't going near anyone. Like i said, usually a quarterback is getting blinded, and the ball may flutter out sideways- and that is NOT grounding- Vick's was completely differenent as he was just throwing the ball before his ass touched the ground. That *is* why the intentional grounding rule was created.
    Post #37 by BMore pretty much refutes you arguement. It was an incomplete pass, nothing more, nothing less. You cannot penalize on what was intended but only on what took place. McCoy was in the vicinity but ended up no where near Vick's pass because the hit by Ngata change the trajectory of the ball.




  10. #40

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by cbaywolf View Post
    Yes, but the majority of the time that happens, a quarterback is hit in the back from his blindside, or doesn't see it coming, and he's not throwing the ball "to avoid a sack".

    In yesterday's instance, that was CLEARLY the ONLY thing Vick was trying to do was AVOID A SACK! That pass wasn't going near anyone. Like i said, usually a quarterback is getting blinded, and the ball may flutter out sideways- and that is NOT grounding- Vick's was completely differenent as he was just throwing the ball before his ass touched the ground. That *is* why the intentional grounding rule was created.
    What do you think of the Tuck Rule and do you think it was applied properly in the infamous tuck rule game.




  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,484

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by RavenusMaximus View Post
    You all must have been doing a lot of drinking in that bar then, because I and everyone I talked to said they could see it was intentional grounding the first time. I was surprised when they said it was a fumble.
    None at all actually. Training for a half marathon. Ravor put it best ....

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    McCoy is out in the flat by the sideline. No, the ball doesn't get close to McCoy, but that's because Vick was being hit when he throws the ball. There is a reverse angle from behind Vick where you can see McCoy's feet at the top of the screen and that Vick's arm is clearly moving in that direction ... I didn't think it was anything close to Grounding. There have been plenty of instances where a QB has been hit while releasing the ball, the ball ends up landing nowhere near any receivers and it's not called grounding. And, shouldn't be.
    This.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    shrewsbury, pa
    Posts
    618

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by GOTA View Post
    If he was outside the tackle box he didn't need to have an eligible receiver. In that case it just needs to get to the line of scrimmage, which it did. I don't think Vick was outside the tackle box which it why he had to throw it to a receiver
    It bounced the the line of scrimmage. It hit on the 5 and bounced to the 2. The line was the one.




  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Westminster (FORMER Training Camp)
    Posts
    1,189

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    I saw the same thing B-more Ravor saw - feet at the top of the screen and could have been the target. The fact that it did not make it to the LOS does not apply to an intended target. If so, then every throw at the feet of a back behind the line when the pocket collapses would be IG; and I do not think it is a penalty.
    Captain Offense




  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ellicott City
    Posts
    306

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    What do you think of the Tuck Rule and do you think it was applied properly in the infamous tuck rule game.
    I think the Tuck Rule is a fucking joke. Also in that case, it was clear that Brady was no longer passing the ball, and he fumbled the fucking ball! I have no idea why they made this rule except to try to turn the refs into clones- but the fact is there are still a lot of calls that are open to the judgement of the referees, so I don't see why that one should be any different (just as confirming that a receiver is in the area is always open to judgement- is 10 yards away in the area?). Once the QB's arm starts coming down, and it's clear it's not a passing motion, it should be a fumble. This rule is a freaking joke that infers that refs are incompetent.




  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    shrewsbury, pa
    Posts
    618

    Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

    If you are going down and try to throw the ball away its grounding. Vick was trying to avoid the sack and have 3rd and goal from the 10. He threw that ball away.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland