Intentional Grounding Video - last play

[ElvisLives]

In checking the recently released CFO Intentional Grounding video, the last play has me confused.  In that play, the QB takes the snap, and, while in the Tackle Box and NOT under any direct threat or duress, throws the ball high, through and past the end zone.  Shaw makes the comment that the crew did/should communicate that there is no eligible A receiver in the area, implying that this should be intentional grounding.

The CCA Philosophies Document clearly states that a passer (should I say, the receiver of the snap/passer) may throw the ball anywhere he wants, if he is not under duress.  Shaw did not state that he believed the passer to be under duress, but, perhaps that was his judgment on the play.  Anybody have any positive knowledge of his judgment on that play, either way?

Shaw may have only been trying to make the point that the deep guys can get involved in intentional grounding, just as well as the LOS guys, and the play he used was just the best example he had (?).  But, as the R, I would not rule that particular play as ING. 

I welcome other thoughts.

Robert

[Rulesman]

No, but consider what you wrote.

1) Not under duress
2) Not outside the tackle box
3) Throws it high, through and past the back of the end zone

So you are saying the tuba player in the 3rd row is an eligible receiver?

 

[Kalle]

So you are saying the tuba player in the 3rd row is an eligible receiver?

No, Elvis is saying that if the QB is not under duress, is he really conserving yardage by throwing the ball where no eligible receiver might catch it. That is what the mechanics philosophy says - or at least has said so far.

[ElvisLives]

No, but consider what you wrote.
1) Not under duress
So you are saying the tuba player in the 3rd row is an eligible receiver?

Not at all.  But, per the CCA Philosophy Document (Document), and the way we were instructed to officiate according to that document in years past, if he wasn't under duress, the passer may throw the ball literally anywhere
1) regardless of his location on the field;
2) regardless of whether the ball crosses the NZ or not;
3) and regardless of the presence of any eligible A players in the area where the ball lands.

The Document remains the same as it was in 2012.  Is Shaw saying something in conflict with the Document?  If not, how do we reconcile what he is saying with the video play presented and the Document?  As I said before, perhaps his opinion is that the passer was under duress.  If so, then all things align.  But, I would not rule this passer as being under duress, so he should be able to throw it to his grandmother in the top row of the stands, if he wants to (but shame on him for not getting his grandmother better tickets).

This could just come down to opinion and judgment, and I'm not saying I'm right.  I'd just like to be sure that we are still following the CCA Philosophy Document.

Robert