Should the NFL Ditch Intentional Grounding?

[Cardot]

Quote: Originally Posted by Evan_OS

Never actually thought about spiking being intentional grounding,

When I was a kid (70's), QB's couldn't spike it. So when they wanted to kill the clock, they would take the snap, and immediatley fire it out of bound over the WR. I can't remember when they changed that rule....sometime in the 80's I think.

[JBH3]

Brady's line was beat and Tuck had a clear path to the QB, Brady avoided what would've been a safety to throw the ball away. He had not the mobility to avoid being hit/tackled, and that was going to happen.

IMO the Giants won that play and the call on the field reflected so.
Regardless of all other reasons to which intentional grounding is aloof, I feel as if the aspect of how it was called in SB46 was correct and justified.

[pegout]

isnt there a was a spike can turn into intentional grounding? i remember earlier this year someone was called for grounding after a spike, it ended the game due to the 10 sec run off for the penalty..

edit: it was chan hanie and call was a delayed spike

[Cardot]

It is definitely a vague rule, and VERY subjective.

I don't like the idea of removing the rule all together, but I don't have any great solutions either.

I suppose one way to remove the controversy...and I am NOT advocating this....but they could make it so all incomplete passes are spotted at the place the QB threw it. Again, not saying I would want this as the game would become pretty conservative.

[nortran11]

Them sissy pretty boys already have it too easy.

Pretty soon, quarterbacks are gonna be like kickers. Might as well just make em wear pink uniforms with poofy sleeves too.

[pegout]

^yea qb's dont get hit, dont get blind sided, dont get smashed while their eyes are down field. as much as the rules suck, qb's still get crushed

[l3ulvl]

Quote: Originally Posted by JBH3

Brady's line was beat and Tuck had a clear path to the QB, Brady avoided what would've been a safety to throw the ball away. He had not the mobility to avoid being hit/tackled, and that was going to happen. IMO the Giants won that play and the call on the field reflected so. Regardless of all other reasons to which intentional grounding is aloof, I feel as if the aspect of how it was called in SB46 was correct and justified.

I wish I'd used a different example than Brady because I wasn't hinting that it was a bad call. Like you said, the Giants won that play, Brady threw it away to avoid the sack/safety, which is intentional grounding and was called correctly, I'm agreeing with the call.

This has been a rule I've wondered about for a long time, I didn't create the thread because of the Brady play. I hope I'm not confusing anyone.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cardot

It is definitely a vague rule, and VERY subjective. I don't like the idea of removing the rule all together, but I don't have any great solutions either. I suppose one way to remove the controversy...and I am NOT advocating this....but they could make it so all incomplete passes are spotted at the place the QB threw it. Again, not saying I would want this as the game would become pretty conservative.

Yeah, like sycodmn said a few posts back. I like that idea, what if every single incomplete pass behind the line of scrimmage was placed where the ball landed? So a spike would come back 2 yards, or grounding plays could come back, too, also encouraging QBs to throw past the LOS. It would be an interesting twist, but I don't know how you could regulate that if a receiver got his hands on it.

edit: I just realized you mean to place the ball where it was thrown, not where it landed. That would be interesting too.

[Cardot]

The other oddity with the rule is that the offense really isn't punished. If the QB gets rid of it to avoid a sack, the worse thing that can happen is that he gets called, and they end up in the same situation as if had held onto the ball. If anything, they should tack on 5 or 10 additional yards from the point he would have been sacked.