Intentional Grounding

[superpunk]

I'll post the rule per NFL.com's online rule breakdown again

1. Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.
2. Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).

Campbell was not outside the pocket on the screen play that was sniffed out on 2nd and 13. Even if he was, the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage AND there was no receiver in the vicinity.

Can anyone explain why that did not draw a grounding penalty? we get the ball, Pacman gets mauled for no call, and then Romo throws another pick. Could have made a big difference in field position. Again, it seems like officials have no idea what the rule on grounding is.

 

[Yeagermeister]

I'll post the rule per NFL.com's online rule breakdown again

[/LIST]Campbell was not outside the pocket on the screen play that was sniffed out on 2nd and 13. Even if he was, the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage AND there was no receiver in the vicinity.

Can anyone explain why that did not draw a grounding penalty? we get the ball, Pacman gets mauled for no call, and then Romo throws another pick. Could have made a big difference in field position. Again, it seems like officials have no idea what the rule on grounding is.

Because he isn't Romo and doesn't play for Dallas :laugh2:

 

[SultanOfSix]

Because he isn't Romo and doesn't play for Dallas :laugh2:

Funny. I was thinking exactly the same thing.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'll post the rule per NFL.com's online rule breakdown again

[/LIST]Campbell was not outside the pocket on the screen play that was sniffed out on 2nd and 13. Even if he was, the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage AND there was no receiver in the vicinity.

Can anyone explain why that did not draw a grounding penalty? we get the ball, Pacman gets mauled for no call, and then Romo throws another pick. Could have made a big difference in field position. Again, it seems like officials have no idea what the rule on grounding is.

Betts was in the "vicinity"

Subjective I know, but if you look at the film he was there

 

[Boysboy]

I'll post the rule per NFL.com's online rule breakdown again
[/list]Campbell was not outside the pocket on the screen play that was sniffed out on 2nd and 13. Even if he was, the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage AND there was no receiver in the vicinity.

Can anyone explain why that did not draw a grounding penalty? we get the ball, Pacman gets mauled for no call, and then Romo throws another pick. Could have made a big difference in field position. Again, it seems like officials have no idea what the rule on grounding is.

What's with all these "refs blew it for us" threads? I thought TO's pouting and our Sucky D costed us this game? No?

 

[superpunk]

Betts was in the "vicinity"

Subjective I know, but if you look at the film he was there

Betts was nowhere near where the pass ended up. I don't have the replay, but I'd wager he was at least 5-8 yards away, and Campbell chunked it DIRECTLY into the ground.

 

[AmishCowboy]

Betts was in the "vicinity"

Subjective I know, but if you look at the film he was there

You're right, Betts was there, that's all that was needed.

 

[theebs]

Flipping around and watching as much football as I can when the cowboys are on the road, there are two rules that look like each offiicial calls differently.

Pass Interference and Intentional grounding.

I honestly think some officials have no idea and just throw flags and other groups dont throw flags.

That group yesterday let the players play, which I dont have a problem with.

Two penalties were pretty glaring that were missed though, the pacman facemask. The official was 5 feet from pacman witha a clearview and didnt throw the flag. That was mind boggling. ANd the other play was the deep crossing route to crayton. He had his shoulder pad pulled outside of his jersey and couldnt get to the ball and there was no flag!!!

They decided they were going to let them play and that is that.

With the attitude that Dallas had yesterday I am not sure they would have won if we had recieved those calls. I just dont think our defense can stop a good quarterback.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I'll post the rule per NFL.com's online rule breakdown again

[/LIST]Campbell was not outside the pocket on the screen play that was sniffed out on 2nd and 13. Even if he was, the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage AND there was no receiver in the vicinity.

Can anyone explain why that did not draw a grounding penalty? we get the ball, Pacman gets mauled for no call, and then Romo throws another pick. Could have made a big difference in field position. Again, it seems like officials have no idea what the rule on grounding is.

I saw the same thing. He threw it at the feet of the defender, not any offensive player.

The officiating is beyond poor this year. They really need to do something about it.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Betts was in the "vicinity"

Subjective I know, but if you look at the film he was there

He threw it at the feet of the defender, Betts was several yards behind the defender.

 

[Ren]

Betts was in the "vicinity"

Subjective I know, but if you look at the film he was there

he damn near spiked the ball, there's no way that crossed the LOS and there was no receiver close

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

Betts was nowhere near where the pass ended up. I don't have the replay, but I'd wager he was at least 5-8 yards away, and Campbell chunked it DIRECTLY into the ground.

Again, its subjective, but Betts was "in the vicinity" about 3-4 yards away.

My test for it as a fan. If I can see a potential WR on the tv screen, it won't be called for intentional grounding

To be honest though, that was on 3rd down and all it would have done is backed up the punt 10 yards

 

[superpunk]

Flipping around and watching as much football as I can when the cowboys are on the road, there are two rules that look like each offiicial calls differently.

Pass Interference and Intentional grounding.

I honestly think some officials have no idea and just throw flags and other groups dont throw flags.

That group yesterday let the players play, which I dont have a problem with.

Two penalties were pretty glaring that were missed though, the pacman facemask. The official was 5 feet from pacman witha a clearview and didnt throw the flag. That was mind boggling. ANd the other play was the deep crossing route to crayton. He had his shoulder pad pulled outside of his jersey and couldnt get to the ball and there was no flag!!!

They decided they were going to let them play and that is that.

With the attitude that Dallas had yesterday I am not sure they would have won if we had recieved those calls. I just dont think our defense can stop a good quarterback.

I don't necessarily think it would have made a huge difference in the game, but it was a blown call nonetheless, and I've been on this intentional grounding kick since we lost to the Giants last season. In any case, it would have meant better field position for us, likely, since it would have then been 3rd and 23.

If you get a chance, theebs, I'd love a screenshot of that play, showing the ball chunked and Betts' location.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Again, its subjective, but Betts was "in the vicinity" about 3-4 yards away.

My test for it as a fan. If I can see a potential WR on the tv screen, it won't be called for intentional grounding

To be honest though, that was on 3rd down and all it would have done is backed up the punt 10 yards

If a defender wasn't between the offensive player and where the ball landed AND the offensive playere will STILL several yards away at the same time, I could call it subjective. That, was not subjective.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

If a defender wasn't between the offensive player and where the ball landed AND the offensive playere will STILL several yards away at the same time, I could call it subjective. That, was not subjective.

I'll just agree to disagree here. In the grand scheme of the game that play had, well, very little to do with anything.

 

[superpunk]

If a defender wasn't between the offensive player and where the ball landed AND the offensive playere will STILL several yards away at the same time, I could call it subjective. That, was not subjective.

precisely.

I'll just agree to disagree here. In the grand scheme of the game that play had, well, very little to do with anything.

We're not talking about the grand scheme of things. We're talking about this play.

 

[dargonking999]

I'll just agree to disagree here. In the grand scheme of the game that play had, well, very little to do with anything.

Of course it didn't. Your team didn't lose.

Switch the positions, would you be still singing the same tune?

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

precisely.

We're not talking about the grand scheme of things. We're talking about this play.

Of course it didn't. Your team didn't lose.

Switch the positions, would you be still singing the same tune?

Well if you guys really want to argue about it, you are wrong.

I'll just have to have someone give me a screenshot later today and I'll be glad to point it out

Betts was close enough to be considered "in the vicinity" If that isn't being "in the vicinity" then any throw out of bounds would be considered grounding

 

[YosemiteSam]

Well if you guys really want to argue about it, you are wrong.

I'll just have to have someone give me a screenshot later today and I'll be glad to point it out

Betts was close enough to be considered "in the vicinity" If that isn't being "in the vicinity" then any throw out of bounds would be considered grounding

Next.

 

[superpunk]

Well if you guys really want to argue about it, you are wrong.

Oh, ok.

Pack it up everyone - we're wrong. Never mind what the rules say.