Anyone else ever see grounding called on a miscommunication pass?

[TopFrog]

No matter the nomenclature, it is a penalty. Shrevefrog - you need to watch more football. Heck it was called THE NEXT DAY in the NFL.

Completely different play.

Yes you can as an official determine what is intentionally avoiding a sack and standing in a clean pocket and make a throw that looks bad because of miscommunication or route mistake. Maybe you need to watch more football and learn what you are seeing.

 

[arlingtonbell]

There are 2 or 3 plays per game where the QB is in the pocket and throws the ball to an area with no receiver. Do you see 2 or 3 intentional grounding calls per game?

The idea that those are the only 2 aspects of the rule and nothing else matters is simply not correct. The rule is not designed to punish a team for a bad throw, wrong route, or miscommunication. It's designed to make sure getting a sack is possible.

Uhm Just because they arent called does not mean they shouldnt be. And yes those are the 2 aspects of the penalty officials do not assess intent you have to be accountable for where the ball ends up in relation to the receiver is at and in this case that was a no doubt penalty. Sometimes you get an official who will go out of their way to find and declare ANYONE near that type of pass as in the area and they tried to do that here thats why it took so long cuz you try to give the Offense the benefit of the doubt but this one was going to be hard to get around

 

[arlingtonbell]

Then why is it called INTENTIONAL Grounding?

Cuz calling it " throwing a ball 30 yards past a receiver to the corner when he is running a post" is too long.

 

[arlingtonbell]

arlingtonbell, it appears that you know what you are talking about and still involved in officiating football. I'm old, retired from officiating, and don't remember things as well as I used to.

Please become the voice of reason on this site and provide education to those fans that are in need of it. I will back you up, even though I don't think you will. If you agree to step in and do it, I can promise you that you will get frustrated and pissed off at those that don't agree with you, but take solace in the fact you are probably correct and they never will be. At one time I thought I had Deep Purple educated, but he has regressed. Frog-in-law will also be another that can give you support.

Good luck!

Thank you for the kind words Zebra. We have plenty of knowledgeable fans on here sometimes we tend to think with our heart more than our head. Everyone on here complaining about it wud have been throwing their hands in the air if WVU QB would have thrown that same ball. And i never get frustrated or pissed with those who dont agree with me we are all entitled to our opinions its never personal

 

[y2kFrog]

Cuz calling it " throwing a ball 30 yards past a receiver to the corner when he is running a post" is too long.

That is not even a good argument. This is the problem with officiating (and the Big 12 is one of the biggest offenders). Officials are drilled into robots and seemed to lose all common sense. I had a great view of this play. The route was broken off with the ball in the air. When it was released I thought we had something, and then the receiver curled out and they ball sailed down the seam.

 

[BrewingFrog]

That is not even a good argument. This is the problem with officiating (and the Big 12 is one of the biggest offenders). Officials are drilled into robots and seemed to lose all common sense. I had a great view of this play. The route was broken off with the ball in the air. When it was released I thought we had something, and then the receiver curled out and they ball sailed down the seam.

If the Official cannot make a simple judgement that there was no intent to heave the ball away to avoid a loss, given that a receiver ran the wrong route and there was no pressure on the QB, then we're pretty much screwed.

The penalty is there for a reason, and none of the reasons for the rule itself were present. It was clearly a blown route, not an attempt to avoid a sack. Yet, our mindless automaton of a game official flagged it anyway, because, reasons!

There is rapidly becoming less and less to get excited over watching College Football in these sad times...

 

[y2kFrog]

If the Official cannot make a simple judgement that there was no intent to heave the ball away to avoid a loss, given that a receiver ran the wrong route and there was no pressure on the QB, then we're pretty much screwed.

The penalty is there for a reason, and none of the reasons for the rule itself were present. It was clearly a blown route, not an attempt to avoid a sack. Yet, our mindless automaton of a game official flagged it anyway, because, reasons!

There is rapidly becoming less and less to get excited over watching College Football in these sad times...

The Big 12 has lost all of it's good head referees over the past 3 or 4 years, and unfortunately we are left with relatives of heads of officials.

 

[arlingtonbell]

The Big 12 has lost all of it's good head referees over the past 3 or 4 years, and unfortunately we are left with relatives of heads of officials.

I see what you did there. I take it you DO NOT approve of Derek Anderson(Walt Andersons son) crew lol

 

[arlingtonbell]

For those still questioning this call this play was featured on the NCAA Officials play review and ruled to correctly been called Intentional Grounding. Play 4 4;10 mark

 

[ShreveFrog]

So officials covering for other officials? Sounds right.

 

[BrewingFrog]

For those still questioning this call this play was featured on the NCAA Officials play review and ruled to correctly been called Intentional Grounding. Play 4 4;10 mark

So what.

Yes, by the letter of the rule. However, there is a saying that many lawyers are familiar with: "Sometimes the Law is an ass." It is clear that there was a breakdown in the play called, and not an attempt to take advantage of the rules covering passing. A QB under duress doesn't heave the ball 40+ yards down the field, he quickly dumps it off to the sideline. In this case, the elements of duress were not present.

A decent Official would have never thrown that flag, knowing that it was a busted play and not a move originating from desperation. But, a bureaucracy does not encourage thinking, only mindless adherence to "the rules" and woe betide the man who deviates from this stricture...

 

[Spike]

So what.

Yes, by the letter of the rule. However, there is a saying that many lawyers are familiar with: "Sometimes the Law is an ass."

Never heard this saying. My problem is not so much with the law as written by Congress or the legislature but in the judicial interpretation there of.

With all of the mistakes the Frogs made Saturday I can't believe we are on the 5th page arguing about the interpretation of this one call. The interception and the non call on their hit out of bounds were much more egregious. Meanwhile our red zone woes continue. It's been a knock of this OC his entire career.

 

[4 Oaks Frog]

No one has mentioned the (non) pic. I thought that was a n INT and the replay validated it but they reversed and said he bobbled it. What you guys think?

B S call. Perfect INT!

 

[Zubaz]

For those still questioning this call this play was featured on the NCAA Officials play review and ruled to correctly been called Intentional Grounding. Play 4 4;10 mark

This really should be the closer on the topic. From that angle it's clear as day. He was under pressure, in the tackle box, and threw (off his back foot) to an area where there was no receiver. Obvious grounding.

It's nearly identical to the opening drive of Super Bowl XLVI, where Brady was under pressure and threw to a receiver that had broken off his route. Sure enough, that was grounding [and a safety].

(skip to 0:16 for the play)

 

[An-Cap Frog]

For those still questioning this call this play was featured on the NCAA Officials play review and ruled to correctly been called Intentional Grounding. Play 4 4;10 mark

Agreed.

 

[MAcFroggy]

Yeah. When I watched the play live I thought it was grounding. I told my body immediately that we were lucky they didn’t throw a flag. And then they did.

I remember watching a couple games last season when the announcers and rules analysts specifically talking about these kind of plays. They said it was a point of emphasis to call these intentional grounding, so imagine we will continue to see these called grounding.

 

[arlingtonbell]

So officials covering for other officials? Sounds right.

If u watch the entire tape there are several plays where Steve Shaw disagreed with the officials. This isnt politics when plays get sent in for review the feedback in return is honest and backed by a rule interpretation. But stay with your conspiracy theories if u must

 

[ShreveFrog]

@arlingtonbell - Idiotic interpretation of the rule. QB correctly read one on one coverage on outside receiver. He threw a go route. Simple as that. But flag happy ref couldn’t help himself.

 

[hometown frog]

This really should be the closer on the topic. From that angle it's clear as day. He was under pressure, in the tackle box, and threw (off his back foot) to an area where there was no receiver. Obvious grounding.

It's nearly identical to the opening drive of Super Bowl XLVI, where Brady was under pressure and threw to a receiver that had broken off his route. Sure enough, that was grounding [and a safety].

(skip to 0:16 for the play)

So is his left foot his back foot for you or am I missing something? pic is the frame right at release. DE IS in his face and a step or two away and the receiver still hasn’t officially broke off his upfield route. (you can see he’s breaking down to cut the out route).
also if you let the video roll, the DE has enough time to pull back from contact on Morris and does. Kinda hard to argue under duress AND time to pull off from the hit.

 

[arlingtonbell]

@arlingtonbell - Idiotic interpretation of the rule. QB correctly read one on one coverage on outside receiver. He threw a go route. Simple as that. But flag happy ref couldn’t help himself.

I dont make the rules in this case the rule is interpreted as it is written. EZ call