« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Intentional Grounding non-call  (Read 7134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 758
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-13
Intentional Grounding non-call
« on: October 11, 2010, 10:16:58 PM »
Did anyone catch Pitt at Notre Dame this weekend? I want to get y'alls opinion on the non-call of intentional grounding at the end of the game. Sorry, but the only clip I can find is here. FF to 2:53 and you can catch a 3 second glimpse of the play.
[yt=425,350]B46CsT3Ij7s[/yt]

A12 receives the snap and B98 and B55 converge on A12 and have him wrapped up. As he is going to the ground A12 throws the ball directly into the ground to avoid the safety and loss of yardage. However, A2 is "in the area" but is being blocked backwards and the ball is thrown behind him. According to rule 7-2-2f, I don't see how this is not intentional grounding, safety. In what way can you determine that A2 had a legitimate chance to catch that ball?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 09:20:43 AM by Grant - AR »
Logged

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1860
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: Intentional Grounding non-call
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2010, 01:51:56 PM »
The pass is thrown right at the feet of A89.  I am inclined to agree that by rule, it is pretty clear he is dumping the ball but from what I have been told, by philosophy, that is good enough not to call.
Logged

Offline FLbackjudge

  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: Intentional Grounding non-call
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2010, 03:13:41 PM »
This play is in the latest "Accountability Video" from CFO.  Dave Parry says it should have been a safety.
Logged

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 758
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-13
Re: Intentional Grounding non-call
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2010, 03:16:47 PM »
Quote from: FLbackjudge on October 12, 2010, 03:13:41 PM
This play is in the latest "Accountability Video" from CFO.  Dave Parry says it should have been a safety.
I thought it should have been too when i saw it. TV dweebs kept quoting 'in the area, in the area' but im thinking, rulebook says nothin about just BEING there. Has to have a reasonable chance to actually CATCH the thing. Clearly, he didnt.
Logged

Offline ref6983

  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-33
Re: Intentional Grounding non-call
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2010, 04:17:39 PM »
Quote from: clearwall on October 12, 2010, 03:16:47 PM
I thought it should have been too when i saw it. TV dweebs kept quoting 'in the area, in the area' but im thinking, rulebook says nothin about just BEING there. Has to have a reasonable chance to actually CATCH the thing. Clearly, he didnt.

Not sure how you can say he didn't have a reasonable chance to catch the pass? All he needed to do was make a half turn to his right and reach out and grab the ball out of the air. It hits within a yard of him.

The foul for ING is against the passer. Hard to figure why whatever the eligible receiver is doing (blocking or not, looking or not) matters in determining whether the passer has commited a foul or not.
Logged

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 758
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-13
Re: Intentional Grounding non-call
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2010, 05:20:29 PM »
Quote from: FLbackjudge on October 12, 2010, 03:13:41 PM
This play is in the latest "Accountability Video" from CFO.  Dave Parry says it should have been a safety.

Do you have a link to that information or is it proprietary?
Logged

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: Intentional Grounding non-call
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2010, 06:24:55 PM »
Quote from: clearwall on October 12, 2010, 05:20:29 PM
Do you have a link to that information or is it proprietary?

You have to be a registered member of the CFO, but he videos can be found at http://cfo.arbitersports.com/
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »