Intentional Grounding or No?

[Ted T]

(I've searched but haven't been able to find this particular play.)
QB A1 drops to pass and is blitzed.  He scrambles beyond the edge of the free blocking zone, but under heavy pressure fires the ball into the ground at the feet of back A2 (#33) who had stayed in to block and is behind the LOS.  Is this IG or not?

[bama_stripes]

Not.  Area was occupied by an eligible receiver.

Of course, everyone knows he grounded it intentionally to save loss of yardage, but he did it legally.

[GA Umpire]

Not.  Area was occupied by an eligible receiver.

Of course, everyone knows he grounded it intentionally to save loss of yardage, but he did it legally.

[Fatso]

Not.  Area was occupied by an eligible receiver.

Of course, everyone knows he grounded it intentionally to save loss of yardage, but he did it legally.

Agree.  No foul

[Ted T]

That is exactly what I think.  However, there is an interpreter from our area who believes this should be intentional grounding.  Here is what he bases his thinking upon: "A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible receiver, OR thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time.  The "OR" and what comes after it is what he is basing his interpretation on.

Thoughts?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Where I'm at we would get a call from our assignor if we flagged that.

[Fatso]

That is exactly what I think.  However, there is an interpreter from our area who believes this should be intentional grounding.  Here is what he bases his thinking upon: "A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible receiver, OR thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time.  The "OR" and what comes after it is what he is basing his interpretation on.

Thoughts?

Like others have said, he obviously threw incomplete to save loss of yardage/time. But if an eligible is in the area, that's been acceptable on all levels forever.  Similar to throwing a pass into the stands way over the covered receiver's head.  Everyone knows he threw it away intentionally, but it's considered ok.

[bossman72]

NCAA changed this in 2011.  Before that year, the OP was grounding since the receiver wasn't actually trying to catch it.  So the argument was that the QB wasn't really trying to complete the pass, therefore grounding.  They changed it so that there only needs to be a receiver in the area, no matter what he's doing.

To my knowledge, NFHS never had an interp or case play one way or the other.

[animalspooker]

Quiz?  What if he throws into the back of a lineman?  Illegal Touching or Intentional Grounding?

[Fatso]

Quiz?  What if he throws into the back of a lineman?  Illegal Touching or Intentional Grounding?

Grounding. 

[bama_stripes]

Quiz?  What if he throws into the back of a lineman?  Illegal Touching or Intentional Grounding?

There is a difference between “touching” (an intentional act) and “being touched by” (an unintentional act).