Intentional Grounding Enforcement

[wv ref]

4th and whatever for A with the ball being snapped at A’s 1 yard line, 10 seconds left in the 4th quarter,  A is winning by 6 points.  A is attempting to punt out their own end zone when the kicker muffs the snap and is forced to scramble after picking up the football, panicked and about to get tackled in his own end zone he clearly throws a pass to no one and thus we have intentional grounding/illegal forward pass that occurred in the end zone with 2 seconds left.  No other fouls on the play.  What are B’s options?  With 2 seconds left, there is likely only one play going to be ran…the coach says he feels like they have better odds by declining the penalty and taking the ball at the 1 yard line via a turn-over on downs to tie with one scrimmage play (win it with the try) rather than taking the safety and attempt to return the ensuing punt 60-70 yards to win.  Is that an option, or is B forced to take the safety?

 Rule 7-5-5, regarding an incomplete pass says “if the pass is legal, the passing team next snaps the ball at the previous spot, unless lost after forth down”.  But it is silent on illegal forward incomplete passes.
 
  At first, it appears that Rule 7-5-3 reads that B will be force to take the safety.
 
  Rule 7-5-3 is actually written like this:  “If the offending team declines the distance penalty,” (that choice has already been made (note the comma in the sentence)) “it has the choice of having the down count at the spot of the illegal incomplete forward pass or…” (or what?  If they have a choice, there has to be more than one option.  Instead, the Rule immediately begins addressing how to handle an illegal completed forward pass, different scenario.  What is the second option for an already declined, illegal incomplete forward pass?).
 
 Does it make a difference if the illegal incomplete pass was thrown from behind vs beyond the neutral zone?  For example, if a player ran 45 yards downfield then made a forward pitch that was muffed and became incomplete we can enforce that from the end of the run (Rule 7-5-3) but we do not allow B to decline it and go all the way back the previous spot as if it were a legal incomplete forward pass.  Why does the Rule Book give intentional grounding its own signal separate from all other illegal forward passes?   When looking at the list of illegal forward passes, the intentional grounding is the only type that cannot occur unless it is committed behind (or in) the neutral zone (the rest all have the potential to be committed beyond the neutral zone).

[bossman72]

I believe this is an exact case play somewhere in the book.

Incomplete LEGAL forward passes get returned to the previous spot.
Incomplete ILLEGAL forward passes get returned to the spot of the pass.

Intentional grounding is a type of illegal forward pass.

So in your scenario, both accepting and declining the penalty result in a safety.

[wv ref]

I believe you are correct,  but I am having trouble convincing others of this, was hoping someone may have a casebook play or definite location of what you're talking about to reference.

[scrounge]

By 10-3-1, only a legal forward pass can be a loose ball play, not an illegal one. 7-5-2 clearly defines that intentional grounding is an illegal forward pass, so putting those together, a play with intentional grounding would be a running play. The end of the run is the spot of the illegal forward pass, so this is the basic spot. In this case, the basic spot is in the EZ. So if they accept the penalty, it's a safety, and if they decline the penalty, it's still a safety. Doesn't look like B has any options but to take it here.

Cover the punt, coach

[medi-ogre]

I guess I'm not clear as to why a declined penalty would result in a safety here.  If a team declines any penalty, they necessarily take the result of the play.  The result of this play minus all the arguments about legal/illegal forward pass is an incomplete forward pass.  Since there are 2 seconds left, B can decline this penalty and go with the result of the play:  An incomplete forward pass.  They would then get the ball on the turnover on downs.

If this had been say an illegal shift on A and because he has an irrepressible hero complex, the punter decides to make a run for it and is tackled short of the line to gain with 2 seconds left.  B would obviously decline the penalty taking the result of the play and have 1st and presumably goal with 2 seconds left.

What am I missing?

[AlUpstateNY]

You might take a long, careful look at NFHS 7-5-3, and the choices offered to the offended team.

[medi-ogre]

Ya, I get it, and I find it an unfortunate situation.  A benefits by fouling here.  If the scramble/no look pass by the punter ends up finding its way to the vicinity of an eligible receiver yet lands incomplete, B has 1st and goal with 2 seconds left.  A's illegal pass has inadvertently helped them (although, any coach not telling their punter to just run around a bit and step out the back of the EZ should be canned on the spot).

Here's another scenario a bit more feasible:

45 seconds left in 4Q.  A down by 1.  4th and 6 from A's 7.  A1 drops back into end zone, scrambles and throws incomplete pass into vacated area.  As B, you have no options as the rules are written.  You get a safety no matter what you choose.  A can now attempt an onside kick and if recovered, has at least a shot of getting into FG range. 

Wouldn't you as B want an option to at least negate the illegal aspects of the pass making it an incomplete legal forward pass from which you would get the ball at A's 7 and take knees?

[AlUpstateNY]

Wouldn't you as B want an option to at least negate the illegal aspects of the pass making it an incomplete legal forward pass from which you would get the ball at A's 7 and take knees?

Regrettably, my opportunities to be "B" once again, are LONG past, and fading rapidly. I'll have to settle for what the rule makers decide.

[scrounge]

I guess I'm not clear as to why a declined penalty would result in a safety here.  If a team declines any penalty, they necessarily take the result of the play.  The result of this play minus all the arguments about legal/illegal forward pass is an incomplete forward pass.  Since there are 2 seconds left, B can decline this penalty and go with the result of the play:  An incomplete forward pass.  They would then get the ball on the turnover on downs.

If this had been say an illegal shift on A and because he has an irrepressible hero complex, the punter decides to make a run for it and is tackled short of the line to gain with 2 seconds left.  B would obviously decline the penalty taking the result of the play and have 1st and presumably goal with 2 seconds left.

What am I missing?

The illegal pass means it's a running play, not a loose ball play. Where was the end of the run? At the basic spot - in the end zone. Safety is the result of the play, just as if he got tackled there.

[ALStripes17]

The illegal pass means it's a running play, not a loose ball play. Where was the end of the run? At the basic spot - in the end zone. Safety is the result of the play, just as if he got tackled there.

Nailed it.

8-5-2c also clearly states it as a supplement to how the penalty is enforced.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[OHref71]

I believe you are correct,  but I am having trouble convincing others of this, was hoping someone may have a casebook play or definite location of what you're talking about to reference.

you and me both I could not believe how many people were saying they could decline and take the ball.

[Ralph Damren]

Intentional grounding is in the illegal forward pass family.

Illegal forward passes are enforced as running plays. Why :

  (1) Intentional grounding needs to be treated as a running play and if the run ends in the endzone,
       it is a safety even if the penalty is declined.

  (2) An attempted backward pass that goes forward 50 yards beyond the LOS shouldn't be returned
       there for enforcement.

[bama_stripes]

(2) An attempted backward pass that goes forward from 50 yards beyond the LOS shouldn't be returned there for enforcement.

FIFY

[Ralph Damren]

FIFY

Good point, 'Bama, an attempted backward pass that goes 50 yards forward would certainly mean that someone needs a compus!!

[sir55]

Look at rules 8-5-2c  and 10-5-4.

[Ralph Damren]

While taking or declining the penalty has the same results, don't confuse the safety with other scores where  a occurred foul may be enforced on the succeeding spot (ie..the IG penalty on the awarded safety WOULDN'T move K's free kick line to the 15). The Rules Committee, in it's infinite wisdom, decided a while back that awarding a safety is enough and now yardage was necessary.

[scrounge]

Nailed it.

8-5-2c also clearly states it as a supplement to how the penalty is enforced.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Good find, didn't notice at first that this exact situation is covered in black-letter rule in Rule 8-5:

ART. 2 . . . It is a safety when:

c. A player on offense commits any foul for which the penalty is accepted and enforcement is from a spot in his end zone; or throws an illegal forward pass from his end zone and the penalty is declined in a situation which leaves him in possession at the spot of the illegal pass and with the ball having been forced into the end zone by the passing team.