Arm going Forwad, Hmmm Intentional Grounding!?!?!?!

**RavensQB** · 09-16-2012, 09:20 PM

Who was the eligible reciever???

Loss of down and yards.

**s.r.genovese** · 09-16-2012, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by RavensQB

Who was the eligible reciever???

Loss of down and yards.

I said the same thing though I had no expectation that they would even think about that after having to go back and review such a blatantly obvious play to begin with.

**HKusp** · 09-16-2012, 09:26 PM

I am thinking that MAYBE just MAYBE there was a receiver on the side close to the line of scrimmage and they gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was hit while throwing. That or they totally screwed the pooch on the call...

**KidSampson** · 09-16-2012, 09:28 PM

It was horrendous to call it a fumble to begin with - THE BALL WENT FORWARD. They had their head up their ass so far with the fumble review that I doubt they even thought to call the intentional grounding.

**CptJesus** · 09-17-2012, 12:20 AM

Technically, Vick was outside the Tackle Box. However, he didn't have an eligible receiver anyways.

The whole play was such a clusterfuck that I don't think anyone really know what was going on. The grounding got lost in the 20 minute conference the refs had.

**RavenusMaximus** · 09-17-2012, 12:30 AM

and to think, it wasn't even the worst mistake the refs made in that game.

**bmorebirds_24** · 09-17-2012, 06:34 AM

I thought that when a QB makes a throw outside the tackle box he still has to get the ball to the line of scrimmage? Did Vick do that?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

**Lee Van Cleef** · 09-17-2012, 06:39 AM

I really don't think it is worth constantly hollering about this one. The Jones TD was the egregious call that really did it for the Ravens.

**GOTA** · 09-17-2012, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by CptJesus

Technically, Vick was outside the Tackle Box. However, he didn't have an eligible receiver anyways.

The whole play was such a clusterfuck that I don't think anyone really know what was going on. The grounding got lost in the 20 minute conference the refs had.

If he was outside the tackle box he didn't need to have an eligible receiver. In that case it just needs to get to the line of scrimmage, which it did. I don't think Vick was outside the tackle box which it why he had to throw it to a receiver

**Dirt1** · 09-17-2012, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

If he was outside the tackle box he didn't need to have an eligible receiver. In that case it just needs to get to the line of scrimmage, which it did. I don't think Vick was outside the tackle box which it why he had to throw it to a receiver

The line of scrimage was the 1 yard line. Vick's pass did not make it back to the line of scrimage. He was getting hit as he was throwing the ball though. I don't know if that matters in whether or not intentional grounding is called.

**HoustonRaven** · 09-17-2012, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

If he was outside the tackle box he didn't need to have an eligible receiver. In that case it just needs to get to the line of scrimmage, which it did. I don't think Vick was outside the tackle box which it why he had to throw it to a receiver

Agreed.

And compound the fact it was originally a fumble. Once the play was ruled a fumble, they cannot then go under the hood and call grounding based on the replay.

It was such a bang bang play I don't think the regular refs would have made a different call.

**Paintballguy** · 09-17-2012, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Agreed.

And compound the fact it was originally a fumble. Once the play was ruled a fumble, they cannot then go under the hood and call grounding based on the replay.

It was such a bang bang play I don't think the regular refs would have made a different call.

The regular refs wouldn't have ruled it a fumble. It was obvious it wasn't a fumble. The ball went like 10 yards forward.

**JAB1985** · 09-17-2012, 07:38 AM

yeah, i dont think the Regs miss that one. its not like he was hit from behind and the ball went forward which would be understandable. He got hit in the front and the ball went forward. thats defying physics at that point to call it a fumble. Regs wouldnt have missed that one.

I do think he was inside the tackle box so it should have been intentional grounding since it didnt make it to the LOS. i think thats a stupid rule though to be honest. When getting hit its kind of hard to ask them to continue their pass as if they arent getting hit.

**GOTA** · 09-17-2012, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

The regular refs wouldn't have ruled it a fumble. It was obvious it wasn't a fumble. The ball went like 10 yards forward.

A pee wee football ref wouldn't rule that ball a fumble. It doesn't get much clearer than that

**pslholder96** · 09-17-2012, 07:51 AM

Yesterday was a good reminder on how much we should be missing the refs currently on strike. That was an unecessary call and clearly an incomplete pass. The game dragged on way too long. The call on Jacoby was definately questionable in light of the fact that the Eagles DB were mugging our receivers all day.

**Section 502 Raven** · 09-17-2012, 08:24 AM

knowing these refs they probably believe as long as the ball rolls past the line of scrimmage its OK. I didn;t hink vick was out ot the tackle box but the announcers never broght up the issue either.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 09-17-2012, 08:30 AM

When someone is dragging you to the ground as you throw the ball forward, I would like to see you throw it where you want to.

In order to take judgement calls out of the game, that was rightly called an incomplete pass.

No objective viewer thinks that was intentional grounding. Hell, most Ravens fans don't either.

**pslholder96** · 09-17-2012, 08:34 AM

[QUOTE=Raveninwoodlawn;488443]When someone is dragging you to the ground as you throw the ball forward, I would like to see you throw it where you want to.

In order to take judgement calls out of the game, that was rightly called an incomplete pass.

No objective viewer thinks that was intentional grounding. Hell, most Ravens fans don't either.[/QUOTE]

With the Op being in the minority..smh

**s.r.genovese** · 09-17-2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

When someone is dragging you to the ground as you throw the ball forward, I would like to see you throw it where you want to.

In order to take judgement calls out of the game, that was rightly called an incomplete pass.

No objective viewer thinks that was intentional grounding. Hell, most Ravens fans don't either.

But thats the point. You're not supposed to be able to just push the ball forward in the midst of being hit to no one in order to avoid a sack. The ball never reached the 1 yard line (LOS) which meant it was grounding. However, because it was originally called incorrectly, they couldn't call grounding.

**festivus** · 09-17-2012, 08:49 AM

I thought it was intentional grounding. In fact, I thought that's exactly the kind of play for which they introduced the concept of intentional grounding.

It was the worst-officiated football game I've ever seen, at any level. Setting aside the bad calls and non-calls, the inability of the refs to move smoothly from one play to the next was a disgrace to the NFL.