Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 106
  1. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,277


    Quote Originally Posted by RavenusMaximus View Post
    I think the league knew about that rule and they never called it until the best opportunity came up. With the country still recovering from 9/11, the Patriots had to win that game.
    Wow. SMH.
    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.




  2. #50

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

    Also, doesn't the "outside the hash marks" delineation still apply?
    After 5 years of early exits, the journey is finally complete.




  3. #51

    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.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  4. #52

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SC_Raven_Fan View Post
    Also, doesn't the "outside the hash marks" delineation still apply?
    the hash marks have nothing to do with anything
    Last edited by Brtnder81; 09-18-2012 at 01:31 AM.




  5. #53

    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




  6. #54

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Wow. SMH.
    HR, do you think we could impose a 4 day quiet period (Thursday) for some posters after a loss. Seriously




  7. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Dimas, CA
    Posts
    6,404

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RavenusMaximus View Post
    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.




  8. #56

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

    Quote Originally Posted by alien bird View Post
    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.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  9. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ellicott City
    Posts
    224

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    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?




  10. #58

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cbaywolf View Post
    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.




  11. #59

    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.




  12. #60

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Brtnder81 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by JAB1985; 09-18-2012 at 01:39 PM.
    -JAB




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