Intentional Grounding

[TXMike]

From RG's site:

I didn't think the QB could escape an IG flag by throwing the ball into the ground in front of his potential receiver?
[yt=425,350]yVdLcJNKW70[/yt]


It is pretty clear the pass was not going to an eligible receiver but it was tipped by the defense?
[yt=425,350]wV2NT3v-b-Y[/yt]

[TX Zebra]

It is pretty clear the pass was not going to an eligible receiver but it was tipped by the defense?

7-3-2-f says that grounding is defined by "a forward pass that is thrown where no eligible team A player has a reasonable opportunity to catch the pass."  This play certainly qualifies, no qualification regarding being touched by B.

[TXMike]

No argument about the rule.  Just wondering about the philosophy. 

[Etref]

No argument about the rule.  Just wondering about the philosophy. 

I have no problem with it. Looked like a smart play by the QB.

[110]

The first play is iffy. There is an "eligible receiver in the area of the pass," and to suggest IG is to attempt to read something into the play that may not be there. What if the Q was trying to throw it ahead and down of the receiver, and just slipped? Grey zone, and I'd be comfortable taking a pass on this.

The second play is clear. Is there an eligible in the area? No. Though that brings about a question ... would one still throw the flag if it were intercepted? Technicality, yes, but ...

[wlemonnier]

The "out" on an interception by Team B is simple... the ball/pass was never grounded.  The foul is "intentional grounding"... the intentional part is obvious, the grounding never occurred when the pass is intercepted.  Doesn't intentional grounding imply an incomplete pass?

[110]

The "out" on an interception by Team B is simple... the ball/pass was never grounded.  The foul is "intentional grounding"... the intentional part is obvious, the grounding never occurred when the pass is intercepted.  Doesn't intentional grounding imply an incomplete pass?

Ah true. Brain not engaged.

[chymechowder]

Regarding the first play, wasn't there a memo this past year that said something along the lines of:

--running back is blocking in the pocket. protection breaks down. running back slips out of the pocket (still behind NZ) and TURNS BACK TO FACE HIS QB.  qb, while still in the tackle box,  throws the ball and it lands 3 yards shy of the running back  =  NO FOUL

--running back is blocking in the pocket. protection breaks down. running back slips out of the pocket (still behind NZ) and either continues to block or begins running a pass route WITH HIS BACK TO THE QB.  qb, while still in the tackle box,  throws the ball and it lands 3 yards shy of the running back  =  FOUL FOR INTENTIONAL GROUNDING.

[Kalle]

The "out" on an interception by Team B is simple... the ball/pass was never grounded.  The foul is "intentional grounding"... the intentional part is obvious, the grounding never occurred when the pass is intercepted.  Doesn't intentional grounding imply an incomplete pass?

Actually, even though the A.R.'s speak of an intentional grounding, the rules define the foul to be a simple illegal forward pass. Also, rule 7-3-2-d/f does not say that the pass must be incomplete.

Play situation: 1st and 10 from A-40. B40 is offside at the snap. QB A12 does not find an open receiver and, about to be tackled by B45 and still in the pocket, throws a forward pass towards the sideline where there are no team A players. B90 makes a leaping catch a B-45 and is downed there. Ruling?

[TXMike]

Along the same lines...how many times have we discussed the play where the QB unloads into an area where there are only ineligibles and an ineligible catches the pass.  Surely that is IG also? (in additon to illegal touch by originally inelig)

[JasonTX]

Along the same lines...how many times have we discussed the play where the QB unloads into an area where there are only ineligibles and an ineligible catches the pass.  Surely that is IG also? (in additon to illegal touch by originally inelig)

Illegal touching only applies with legal forward passes, so you'd only get the IG.

[TXMike]

Just testing you to see if you are awake jason.   

[MJT]

It seems as if ING is an area that has a wide range of philosophy of when to call, and when not to call. I have seen similar plays to both above that have been called, and not been called. How do we know without further AR's to guide us? It would help if there were more memos as mentioned, giving examples like "--running back is blocking in the pocket. protection breaks down. running back slips out of the pocket (still behind NZ) and TURNS BACK TO FACE HIS QB.  qb, while still in the tackle box,  throws the ball and it lands 3 yards shy of the running back  =  NO FOUL  --running back is blocking in the pocket. protection breaks down. running back slips out of the pocket (still behind NZ) and either continues to block or begins running a pass route WITH HIS BACK TO THE QB.  qb, while still in the tackle box,  throws the ball and it lands 3 yards shy of the running back  =  FOUL FOR INTENTIONAL GROUNDING.
Even with such play scenarios, there are going to be areas of gray, more than with other rules in which we will not know for sure.

[Welpe]

From RG's site:

I didn't think the QB could escape an IG flag by throwing the ball into the ground in front of his potential receiver?

I've argued on other forums and in person that this should qualify as IG but have been told by several college officials that this should not be called.  I don't agree but I understand. 

[Osric Pureheart]

If I'm even going to consider calling that, I've got to be 130% sure that the QB actually intended to put the ball into the ground.  How do you know that the QB in that situation wasn't trying to throw the ball to his reciever, but just made a really bad throw?

[Welpe]

If I'm even going to consider calling that, I've got to be 130% sure that the QB actually intended to put the ball into the ground.  How do you know that the QB in that situation wasn't trying to throw the ball to his reciever, but just made a really bad throw?

Maybe he was, maybe not.  That's part of judgment is judging intent.  I'm all for giving him the benefit of the doubt but there are certainly cases where it is plainly obvious is is spiked so that nobody has a chance at catching it and an eligible receiver just happens to be in the same zip code as the ball.  The intent of the rule IMO is for those to be flagged but as I said, I fully understand that call is almost always not made at the collegiate level.

[Mark uk]

I can't see a flag for either of these situations. Maybe it reflects the quality of the QBs in the leagues I work but anywhere vaguely close to an eligible receiver is just a poor throw, and if the receiver doesn't turn round that's his mistake not the QBs. In the second case the direction is down field and there is a receiver who might get close to the line of the ball, from the video I can't see vertical angle but I might consider it deliberate grounding if thrown so flat it would obviously hit defenders or ineligible line men.