Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 97 to 106 of 106
  1. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Right Where I need to be
    Posts
    1,322

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



    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    Agreed, there are plenty of worse things about that game, the primary to me was the complete inequality in the way PIs and defensive holding was called. Reminds me COMPLETELY of the Colts Pats playoff game where the Refs allowed the Pats to interfere with basically every receiver on basically every snap of the game.

    BUt don't forget, this play turned out to be the gamewinner. And by the SPIRIT of the rule was EXACTLY why tere is such a thing as grouding. He intentionally threw the ball in the ground to avoid a sack. PERIOD, it's what he did, what he tried to do and I don't need to be in his head to know that, it is plain and obvious as the night is dark.
    BOOM!!! Booo YAAA Right on!! Umm What else can I add... SHAZAM. KA-POW




  2. #98

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    BUt don't forget, this play turned out to be the gamewinner. And by the SPIRIT of the rule was EXACTLY why tere is such a thing as grouding. He intentionally threw the ball in the ground to avoid a sack. PERIOD, it's what he did, what he tried to do and I don't need to be in his head to know that, it is plain and obvious as the night is dark.
    I don't think it was a gamewinner...they didn't score any points.

    And the last statement is an opinion.




  3. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Right Where I need to be
    Posts
    1,322

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    I don't think it was a gamewinner...they didn't score any points.

    And the last statement is an opinion.
    So is most of yours!!!! You both agree to disagree. But your THEORY on the tackle box Geesh..




  4. #100

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RavensQB View Post
    So is most of yours!!!! You both agree to disagree. But your THEORY on the tackle box Geesh..
    LOL...you have a problem with how the league views the tackle box, take it up with them.

    This rule has existed for a decade and a half and it was put in for safety reasons. Regarding the tackle box only, every team benefits from it, even the Ravens and Joe.

    The only questionble part of that play was whether Vick had zero intention of getting it to McCoy or not. And in the end the rule that it can't be grounding because he was getting hit makes it moot.

    But my "theory" of the tackle box is not a theory at all. It's a fact that is in the rule book...whether you think it's a bullshit rule or not.




  5. #101

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    LOL...you have a problem with how the league views the tackle box, take it up with them.

    This rule has existed for a decade and a half and it was put in for safety reasons. Regarding the tackle box only, every team benefits from it, even the Ravens and Joe.

    The only questionble part of that play was whether Vick had zero intention of getting it to McCoy or not. And in the end the rule that it can't be grounding because he was getting hit makes it moot.

    But my "theory" of the tackle box is not a theory at all. It's a fact that is in the rule book...whether you think it's a bullshit rule or not.
    This one is real simple it was either a fumble or incomplete pass. More than willing to rip the zebra's for their performance on Sunday but per NFL rules there cannot be intentional grounding if the QB is hit in the act of throwing. The intention of the clause is to prevent an ugly throw affected by a SIMULTANEOUS hit to be ruled as intentional grounding if the QB meant to throw to a receiver but the hit changes the trajectory of the ball

    If you watch the play in slow motion it seems he was throwing the ball after being hit which would be intentional grounding. That said in real time which the refs see the play it is not so cut and dry. The play throw and hit are close enough to warrant not throwing a flag on that. Had they thrown one on Flacco for a similar play we would all be up in arms. When reviewing the play the officials cannot call a penalty. It was either a fumble or incomplete pass and anyone watching that can tell it was not a fumble if they are objective IMO.

    Give Vick some credit. It was good game awareness and smart play.
    A linebacker's job is to knock out running backs, to knock out receivers, to chase the football,
    -Ray Lewis




  6. #102

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    I don't think it was a gamewinner...they didn't score any points.

    And the last statement is an opinion.
    Let me rephrase then...
    If it had been grounding, the game is all but over. Since it was not, they were in a far easier scoring position. The chance of Ravens victory was at best 50/50 with no call, and would have been more in line with 90 percent had it been called an intentional grounding.

    It may be an opinion, but no matter how many times I watch it I can't see how anyone else on the planet could possibly think differently. There is no way he was attempting to complete a pass, he was avoiding a sack by throwing at the ground.

    I can admit that it likely was called correctly per the rules, but to me, much like the tuck rule, it exposes the weakness in the rule. Apparently NFL network says there is no grounding if the QB is getting hit, so all QB's should now intentionally ground every signle time they are being sacked outside the tackle boxm, even if they are still clearly in the pocket. Again, by the spirit of the rule, that was textbook grounding.




  7. #103

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    Let me rephrase then...
    If it had been grounding, the game is all but over. Since it was not, they were in a far easier scoring position. The chance of Ravens victory was at best 50/50 with no call, and would have been more in line with 90 percent had it been called an intentional grounding.

    It may be an opinion, but no matter how many times I watch it I can't see how anyone else on the planet could possibly think differently. There is no way he was attempting to complete a pass, he was avoiding a sack by throwing at the ground.

    I can admit that it likely was called correctly per the rules, but to me, much like the tuck rule, it exposes the weakness in the rule. Apparently NFL network says there is no grounding if the QB is getting hit, so all QB's should now intentionally ground every signle time they are being sacked outside the tackle boxm, even if they are still clearly in the pocket. Again, by the spirit of the rule, that was textbook grounding.
    Oh I totally agree the rules are little goofy but they are the rules. Personally I think the real answer to the issue is to have a shorter clock on the whole "in the grasp" rule. You dont have to get crazy about it. Most people with common sense can tell when the QB just chucked it cause he was getting dragged down. A Defense should not be penalized for that and by calling it an incomplete pass its rewarding the offense. Right now the QB's have it all their way, if you keep trying to make a play its a 15yd roughing call, if you lay off then they just chuck it somewhere and the D is not rewarded at all for a fine defensive play.
    A linebacker's job is to knock out running backs, to knock out receivers, to chase the football,
    -Ray Lewis




  8. #104

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenous1 View Post
    Oh I totally agree the rules are little goofy but they are the rules. Personally I think the real answer to the issue is to have a shorter clock on the whole "in the grasp" rule. You dont have to get crazy about it. Most people with common sense can tell when the QB just chucked it cause he was getting dragged down. A Defense should not be penalized for that and by calling it an incomplete pass its rewarding the offense. Right now the QB's have it all their way, if you keep trying to make a play its a 15yd roughing call, if you lay off then they just chuck it somewhere and the D is not rewarded at all for a fine defensive play.
    I think another rule change that makes sense is to draw 2 lines down the field, 2-5 yards outside the hash marks. Inside those lines, you have to throw it within 10 yards of an eligible receiver, outside you can throw it out of bounds with no target. Don't bother with having to throw it past the line of scrimmage, and if your arm hasn't started moving forward before getting hit, it is grounding if it's not a complete pass.




  9. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ellicott City
    Posts
    224

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

    OK- I just got back online, and I haven't read every response- but I don't think either of those rules apply in this case:

    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.
    Read my original post on the topic- these exceptions pre-suppose that the QB was already attemting to pass, and THEN becomes contacted. THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE! The passer did NOT initiate the passing and THEN became hit. He was first hit, and then decided to pass.

    Vick was contacted FIRST and was about to hit the ground, and THEN decided to fling the ball TO AVOID THE SACK. That is the difference. That is the whole point of grounding- to not be able to chuck it away when you know that you are going to be tackled. I'm not even going to dignify the second point since I don't even think he was outside of the pocket.

    And fyi- I don't even think that they would have had the power to overturn it anyway (and throw a grounding flag)- since they stupidly ruled it a fumble.




  10. #106

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cbaywolf View Post
    OK- I just got back online, and I haven't read every response- but I don't think either of those rules apply in this case:



    Read my original post on the topic- these exceptions pre-suppose that the QB was already attemting to pass, and THEN becomes contacted. THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE! The passer did NOT initiate the passing and THEN became hit. He was first hit, and then decided to pass.

    Vick was contacted FIRST and was about to hit the ground, and THEN decided to fling the ball TO AVOID THE SACK. That is the difference. That is the whole point of grounding- to not be able to chuck it away when you know that you are going to be tackled. I'm not even going to dignify the second point since I don't even think he was outside of the pocket.

    And fyi- I don't even think that they would have had the power to overturn it anyway (and throw a grounding flag)- since they stupidly ruled it a fumble.
    Subsection b) seems to go out of its way not to include the language that requires the QB to be in the process of throwing when the defender hits him, i.e. there is no "and then."

    As for the stupidity of ruling it a fumble, I am still trying to figure out how the officials are supposed to deal with situation (assuming it was grounding or a fumble but possibly either). I guess they could throw the flag, refrain from blowing the whistle, let the play go until it is recovered, mark the spot, call the penalty, and review for fumble later. But I am not sure that kind of option exists.




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