Results 49 to 60 of 106
-
09-17-2012, 07:59 PM #49Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
09-17-2012, 08:01 PM #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.
-
09-17-2012, 10:54 PM #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.
-
09-18-2012, 02:26 AM #52Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Glen Burnie
- Posts
- 2,029
- Blog Entries
- 3
-
09-18-2012, 02:31 AM #53Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Glen Burnie
- Posts
- 2,029
- Blog Entries
- 3
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
-
09-18-2012, 12:21 PM #54Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 8,743
-
09-18-2012, 12:33 PM #55
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
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.
-
09-18-2012, 12:51 PM #56
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
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.
-
09-18-2012, 12:53 PM #57Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Ellicott City
- Posts
- 930
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!
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?
-
09-18-2012, 02:17 PM #58Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: Arm going Forwad, Hmmm 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!?!?!?!
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 02:39 PM.
-JAB
Bookmarks