Treehugger Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I bitch about this every damn season. I know the league wants to protect QBs but once they're in the grasp of a defender how does lobbing the ball in the vague direction of an eligible receiver do anything but rob the defender of a sack? Or as we saw tonight, how is spiking the ball into the turf deemed a "pass"? Such bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueInCanada Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I bitch about this every damn season. I know the league wants to protect QBs but once they're in the grasp of a defender how does lobbing the ball in the vague direction of an eligible receiver do anything but rob the defender of a sack? Or as we saw tonight, how is spiking the ball into the turf deemed a "pass"? Such bullshit. I got no problem with the call really, you cant really defend a QB while he is in the process of the QB getting sacked if anything it just takes away a sack from the defense. At the same time though if the QB obviously throws it no where near the receiver it's a loss of down and penalty. Besides it's not really an easy penalty to mess up, 9/10 the call is made right. I've personally only seen a couple questionable grounding calls, most of the time on plays that break down and the QB is forced to scramble and the WRs start to roam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 I got no problem with the call really, you cant really defend a QB while he is in the process of the QB getting sacked if anything it just takes away a sack from the defense. At the same time though if the QB obviously throws it no where near the receiver it's a loss of down and penalty. Besides it's not really an easy penalty to mess up, 9/10 the call is made right. I've personally only seen a couple questionable grounding calls, most of the time on plays that break down and the QB is forced to scramble and the WRs start to roam. Not sure we're on the same page here, I'm complaining about them not calling it enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I hate the way it's called. That was not a pass to Cadillac Williams, unless his feet have fingers. And it really doesn't make sense to not call it at all if the QB is beyond the pocket. At least get it within 10 yards of a receiver is all I'm asking. If it goes over his head by 10 feet going out of bounds, I'm OK with it--it's the pitching it into the dirt with no one around it that ticks me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I was fine with all the no grounding calls tonight. It just has to be in the direction of the receiver. Williams was right there. Who cares if he threw it at his feet? THAT is smart, and Eli could take a page out of that lesson book by Bradford. If it doesn't get called when the QB spikes the ball to stop the clock, why would it be any different especially when Williams was RIGHT THERE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BronxRik Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I was fine with all the no grounding calls tonight. It just has to be in the direction of the receiver. Williams was right there. Who cares if he threw it at his feet? THAT is smart, and Eli could take a page out of that lesson book by Bradford. If it doesn't get called when the QB spikes the ball to stop the clock, why would it be any different especially when Williams was RIGHT THERE? I always wondered why spiking the ball to stop the clock isn't intentional grounding. I couldn't think of a more intentional grounding than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I always wondered why spiking the ball to stop the clock isn't intentional grounding. I couldn't think of a more intentional grounding than that. If it's done before the two-minute warning, it is intentional grounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 If it's done before the two-minute warning, it is intentional grounding. Well, that's not true. The difference is in the dropback. The QB has to immediately spike the ball after receiving it from the center. What if a team was out of timeouts BEFORE the two minute warning? You would still see them spiking the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Well, that's not true. The difference is in the dropback. The QB has to immediately spike the ball after receiving it from the center. What if a team was out of timeouts BEFORE the two minute warning? You would still see them spiking the ball. You're right about the spiking, my error. Jerry Markbreit: Spiking the ball to stop the clock is called, "clocking the ball." In order to avoid intentional grounding on this play, the quarterback has to throw the ball immediately to the ground in front of him as soon as he receives the snap from center. If he drops back a yard or two and then throws the ball into the ground, intentional grounding will be called. But it has to do with intent. You won't convince me Bradford was trying to stop the clock, nor will you convince me he was trying to make a completion with a pass that wasn't ever 2 feet off of the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You're right about the spiking, my error. Jerry Markbreit: But it has to do with intent. You won't convince me Bradford was trying to stop the clock, nor will you convince me he was trying to make a completion with a pass that wasn't ever 2 feet off of the ground. I wasn't trying to convince you of that, he was simply trying to avoid the sack and the penalty. Unfortunately for us, that's the way the rule is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Unfortunately for us, that's the way the rule is.... ...and that angers me... (I was using a hypothetical "you," not literally you, Storm.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 I wasn't trying to convince you of that, he was simply trying to avoid the sack and the penalty. Unfortunately for us, that's the way the rule is.... Which would be the whole point of the thread. I'm not complaining that the play wasn't within the rules, I'm complaining about the rule itself. I think the QB should at least have to attempt to make the ball catchable, otherwise he's just throwing it away and should be a sack. Bradford clearly did not intend for the back to catch that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStroud Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I wish Eli would study that move, and not try to force one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Which would be the whole point of the thread. I'm not complaining that the play wasn't within the rules, I'm complaining about the rule itself. I think the QB should at least have to attempt to make the ball catchable, otherwise he's just throwing it away and should be a sack. Bradford clearly did not intend for the back to catch that. Good quarterbacks have been doing this for years. I don't get the gripe with the rule. It's still difficult for the QB to find a wide receiver he can throw in the general direction of while being rushed. Not to mention, the defense still wins with an incomplete pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Good quarterbacks have been doing this for years. I don't get the gripe with the rule. It's still difficult for the QB to find a wide receiver he can throw in the general direction of while being rushed. Not to mention, the defense still wins with an incomplete pass. So why penalise the defense for doing their job, especially when the rusher already has hands on the QB? If the QB's clear intention is to ground the ball then it should be called as such. The "receiver in the area" rule should only come into play if the QB makes an actual effort to throw a catchable pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 So why penalise the defense for doing their job, especially when the rusher already has hands on the QB? If the QB's clear intention is to ground the ball then it should be called as such. The "receiver in the area" rule should only come into play if the QB makes an actual effort to throw a catchable pass. How are you penalizing the defense? The quarterback made a smart play. They still lost a down. Maybe if the rule was that the ball has to at least pass the line of scrimmage AND be in the direction of a receiver? That would be about the only way I could see that rule changing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 How are you penalizing the defense? By robbing them of a sack and negative yardage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 By robbing them of a sack and negative yardage. The quarterback wasn't sacked, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 The quarterback wasn't sacked, though. Which is the point Tree is trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 So why penalise the defense for doing their job, especially when the rusher already has hands on the QB? If the QB's clear intention is to ground the ball then it should be called as such. The "receiver in the area" rule should only come into play if the QB makes an actual effort to throw a catchable pass. With the strict rules protecting the QB, it's no stretch to see roughing the passer penalties once the qb releases an uncatchable pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 With the strict rules protecting the QB, it's no stretch to see roughing the passer penalties once the qb releases an uncatchable pass. Yeah, that's where I think it's heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Which is the point Tree is trying to make. No, he's trying to say it robs the defense because the offense's quarterback made effective use of the rules and that the rule should be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlb37 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 If the QB's clear intention is to ground the ball then it should be called as such. The "receiver in the area" rule should only come into play if the QB makes an actual effort to throw a catchable pass. The NFL, for better or worse, despises any rule that leaves judgement in the equation. On that play, spiking the ball at the feet of a RB 1 yard away, it is pretty obvious. Bradford's intent was to ground the football. But where do you draw the line for "clear intent"?? Not saying it is fair, but that is the way they like the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The NFL, for better or worse, despises any rule that leaves judgement in the equation. On that play, spiking the ball at the feet of a RB 1 yard away, it is pretty obvious. Bradford's intent was to ground the football. But where do you draw the line for "clear intent"?? Not saying it is fair, but that is the way they like the rules. What? He had clear intent to throw an incomplete pass to the feet of the running back who was a foot away from him because he knows the rules and doesn't toss a pass half assed to the sidelines from inside the pocket to avoid the rush only to get the grounding called, like Eli likes to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 The NFL, for better or worse, despises any rule that leaves judgement in the equation. On that play, spiking the ball at the feet of a RB 1 yard away, it is pretty obvious. Bradford's intent was to ground the football. But where do you draw the line for "clear intent"?? Not saying it is fair, but that is the way they like the rules. I get that, especially when the QB is in the process of taking a hit and the ball likely won't go where he intended it to go anyway. However in that particular scenario Bradford was not in the grasp of the defender yet and clearly made no attempt to throw a catchable ball. I think that's easy enough to deem "over the line". Storm: No one's saying Bradford wasn't playing within the rules. We're saying we don't like the rule to begin with. It's the offense's job to move the ball upfield. It's the defense's job to disrupt the offense. I don't like the QB having a 'Get out of jail free card' to nullify the defense doing it's job after he failed to do his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now