In general, sports rules are fairly efficient; individual rules usually make logical sense because the bad ones get phased out over the years as the ruling bodies see how they affect gameplay. I don't quite get intentional grounding though. It makes sense to keep a quarterback from throwing the ball away to avoid a successful play by the defense -- a sack situation -- but why limit it to when the QB is between the tackles?

BearyWhite;705057 said:

---

In general, sports rules are fairly efficient; individual rules usually make logical sense because the bad ones get phased out over the years as the ruling bodies see how they affect gameplay. I don't quite get intentional grounding though. It makes sense to keep a quarterback from throwing the ball away to avoid a successful play by the defense -- a sack situation -- but why limit it to when the QB is between the tackles?

---

To protect a scrambling quarterback, as long as the thrown away ball makes it to the line of scrimmage.

BearyWhite;705057 said:

---

In general, sports rules are fairly efficient; individual rules usually make logical sense because the bad ones get phased out over the years as the ruling bodies see how they affect gameplay. I don't quite get intentional grounding though. It makes sense to keep a quarterback from throwing the ball away to avoid a successful play by the defense -- a sack situation -- but why limit it to when the QB is between the tackles?

---

Previously the rule on intentional grounding didn't limit where the QB was relative to the tackle box. I remember QBs scrambling way out and even close to the sidelines getting called for intentional grounding after throwing the ball away. The rule was modified sometime in the early 90s.

This modification of the rule was instituted to protect the QB. Once the QB could get out of the pocket, the ball could be chucked out of bounds or towards empty space to avoid getting decapitated. The only caveat is that if the ball isn't delivered reasonably close to an eligible receiver, intentional grounding can still be called if the ball doesn't make it to at least the line of scrimmage. But I'm guessing you already know that.

I guess the rule wasn't made such that the ball could be deliberately chucked to avoid a loss of down from anywhere. The pocket is usually the QB's comfort zone, and I suppose getting out of the pocket meant at least some sort of effort was needed beyond just standing int he pocket and throwing it away under pressure.

I agree, but I think they should let quarterbacks ground it from anywhere. My rule would be that the ball just has to cross the line of scrimmage, but I'd also eliminate the spike and the "in the area" throw near a running back's feet. It would be way more consistent, and it's not always easy to ground it from the center of the field anyway.

BearClause;705074 said:

---

Previously the rule on intentional grounding didn't limit where the QB was relative to the tackle box. I remember QBs scrambling way out and even close to the sidelines getting called for intentional grounding after throwing the ball away. The rule was modified sometime in the early 90s.

This modification of the rule was instituted to protect the QB. Once the QB could get out of the pocket, the ball could be chucked out of bounds or towards empty space to avoid getting decapitated. The only caveat is that if the ball isn't delivered reasonably close to an eligible receiver, intentional grounding can still be called if the ball doesn't make it to at least the line of scrimmage. But I'm guessing you already know that.

I guess the rule wasn't made such that the ball could be deliberately chucked to avoid a loss of down from anywhere. The pocket is usually the QB's comfort zone, and I suppose getting out of the pocket meant at least some sort of effort was needed beyond just standing int he pocket and throwing it away under pressure.

---

Interesting: How is it different from spiking the ball at the LOS with no timeouts at the end of a half?

because an eligible receiver is nearby--literally 1 feet away.

There is, I believe, an exception in the IG rule for the spike to stop the clock. It has to be done immediately after the snap. I was watching a game this year where it looked like the quarterback held the ball for a second before spiking it, and they actually called intentional grounding on the spike.

BearyWhite;705057 said:

---

In general, sports rules are fairly efficient; individual rules usually make logical sense because the bad ones get phased out over the years as the ruling bodies see how they affect gameplay. I don't quite get intentional grounding though. It makes sense to keep a quarterback from throwing the ball away to avoid a successful play by the defense -- a sack situation -- but why limit it to when the QB is between the tackles?

---

not eradicating good defensive play; in this case, the sack.

This is why the tackle box is one of the defining areas for the QB's location in determining intentional grounding. It defines the area in which defenders are likely to close down escape routes and thus create a sack.

JollyBear;705112 said:

---

There is, I believe, an exception in the IG rule for the spike to stop the clock. It has to be done immediately after the snap. I was watching a game this year where it looked like the quarterback held the ball for a second before spiking it, and they actually called intentional grounding on the spike.

---

Yup, that's it.

I found the application of IG in the Super Bowl unusual. They don't typically call it on any kind of deep pass, because it's hard to divine intent; very often a deep pass goes sailing way over any receiver's head because there was a miscommunication on the route. They don't call IG because it seems clear the QB was intending to throw to someone who just wasn't where he was supposed to be.

You could make that argument for the one Brady got called for in this game, and also maybe that his pass was off the mark because he had a defender diving at his legs as he was trying to release. Strange call, if probably technically correct.

sycasey;705114 said:

---

I found the application of IG in the Super Bowl unusual. They don't typically call it on any kind of deep pass, because it's hard to divine intent; very often a deep pass goes sailing way over any receiver's head because there was a miscommunication on the route. They don't call IG because it seems clear the QB was intending to throw to someone who just wasn't where he was supposed to be.

---

I was thinking the same thing; I figure it's not often called on the deep ball because a defender often has a chance to catch it when it's in the field of play. Then again, I think that Brady's a good enough QB that he uses empty space within the field to dump the ball off, figuring it won't be called. I think this was good officiating.

BearyWhite;705182 said:

---

I was thinking the same thing; I figure it's not often called on the deep ball because a defender often has a chance to catch it when it's in the field of play. Then again, I think that Brady's a good enough QB that he uses empty space within the field to dump the ball off, figuring it won't be called. I think this was good officiating.

---

It was good officiating, but the officiating has to be consistent on those calls.

LethalFang;705222 said:

---

It was good officiating, but the officiating has to be consistent on those calls.

---

Right, that was why I found it odd. When the pass goes sailing deep over the middle in that situation, grounding is usually not called, even if there is not a receiver technically in the area where the pass lands. So to call it in the end zone in the Super Bowl (after initially not throwing a flag) was odd.

What I don't understand is what is the real penalty for intentional grounding? I believe it is just loss of down and the ball is placed where the quarterback was when he threw it? Isn't that the same thing that would happen if he took the sack? The team isn't in any worse spot than if he had just taken the sack, so why not chuck the ball when about to get sacked in case you don't get called for grounding (of course throwing it up so that could get picked off is a deterrent, but assuming the qb throws it away)

GoldenBear96;705264 said:

---

What I don't understand is what is the real penalty for intentional grounding? I believe it is just loss of down and the ball is placed where the quarterback was when he threw it? Isn't that the same thing that would happen if he took the sack? The team isn't in any worse spot than if he had just taken the sack, so why not chuck the ball when about to get sacked in case you don't get called for grounding (of course throwing it up so that could get picked off is a deterrent, but assuming the qb throws it away)

---

That's the point -- QBs are throwing the ball away to avoid a sack, so if you call grounding, you basically make it so he can't avoid the consequences of the sack.

But shouldn't there be an additional penalty? For most penalties, not only does it nullify the play, but there is an additional yardage lost. In this case, there is no additional penalty, just the same outcome if you didn't try to "cheat"

GoldenBear96;705269 said:

---

But shouldn't there be an additional penalty? For most penalties, not only does it nullify the play, but there is an additional yardage lost. In this case, there is no additional penalty, just the same outcome if you didn't try to "cheat"

---

Most penalties don't include the loss of down.

GoldenBear96;705269 said:

---

But shouldn't there be an additional penalty? For most penalties, not only does it nullify the play, but there is an additional yardage lost. In this case, there is no additional penalty, just the same outcome if you didn't try to "cheat"

---

The loss of down is huge.

GoldenBear96;705264 said:

---

What I don't understand is what is the real penalty for intentional grounding? I believe it is just loss of down and the ball is placed where the quarterback was when he threw it? Isn't that the same thing that would happen if he took the sack? The team isn't in any worse spot than if he had just taken the sack, so why not chuck the ball when about to get sacked in case you don't get called for grounding (of course throwing it up so that could get picked off is a deterrent, but assuming the qb throws it away)

---

Of course that's what happens. However, a good reason to chuck it away is that it doesn't necessarily get called, and because it reduces the chance to getting drilled by a very large man with an intent to do harm.

Also, just chucking it away involves risk. If you're about to get hit, you might actually get hit as you try to throw it away, resulting in a fumble or interception when the ball gets away too early or doesn't go where you aimed it. Sometimes it's best just to eat it.

BTW -- I agree it was weird seeing them call IG on a deep pass down the middle.

JollyBear;705112 said:

---

There is, I believe, an exception in the IG rule for the spike to stop the clock. It has to be done immediately after the snap. I was watching a game this year where it looked like the quarterback held the ball for a second before spiking it, and they actually called intentional grounding on the spike.

---

NCAA rule:

[INDENT]Rule 7 / Snapping and Passing the Ball
SECTION 3. Forward Pass
Illegal Forward Pass
ARTICLE 2. A forward pass is illegal if:
e. The passer to conserve time throws the ball directly to the ground (1)
after the ball has already touched the ground; or (2) not immediately after
controlling the ball.
f. The passer to conserve time throws the ball forward into an area where there
is no eligible Team A receiver (A.R. 7-3-2-II-VII).
h. The passer to conserve yardage throws the ball forward into an area where
there is no eligible Team A receiver (A.R. 7-3-2-I).
[Exception: If the passer is or has been outside the tackle box he may throw the
ball so that it crosses or lands beyond the neutral zone or neutral zone extended
(Rule 2-19-3) (A.R. 7-3-2-VIII). This applies only to the player who receives
the snap.][/INDENT]

What's really interesting is that the rule about being able to chuck the ball only applies to the player who receives the snap. So on a trick play it's still considered grounding, unless it's a wildcat. I'm wondering how often it gets called, since I've seen situations where a halfback option resulted in a player chucking it away like a QB would with defenders bearing down.

It's still legal to chuck it away from anywhere as long as there's no specific threat for a sack. You'll se a lot of QBs just scan the field and toss it away when there are no open receivers but also no defensive pressure.

I agree with the call, I actually think Fir the spirit of the game that each pass should be to an intended target no matter what. Chucking it is an easy out to have.

tommie317;705287 said:

---

I agree with the call, I actually think Fir the spirit of the game that each pass should be to an intended target no matter what. Chucking it is an easy out to have.

---

The NFL instituted the rule to give more protection to the QB. Before this rule, QBs were getting hurt quite often because they would hold the ball too long.

GoldenBear96;705269 said:

---

But shouldn't there be an additional penalty? For most penalties, not only does it nullify the play, but there is an additional yardage lost. In this case, there is no additional penalty, just the same outcome if you didn't try to "cheat"

---

You may argue the same for pass interference, that there is no additional penalty for cheating.
That's why there are instances where committing a pass interference may be a smart play (where the receiver has a couple of step on the defender, and can catch and run into the endzone. So you tackle him before he can even catch).
In many casesthough, intentional grounding is called when a sack isn't completely assured, as in Brady's throw away in the endzone last night.

If the IG occurs while the QB is in the endzone - it's a satety
Same with holding - if it occurs in the endzone - it's a safety.