Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 106
  1. #61

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



    Quote Originally Posted by cbaywolf View Post
    Uh, no.

    How does your logic even make sense? First of all, what I think of the tuck rule has nothing to do with intentional grounding- they're two separate topics- I just told you what I think.

    2nd- I have no problem with the definition of "intentional grounding" Was Vick "avoiding a sack"- absolutely. Receiver in the area- no. outside the tackles- probably not- and even if he was, did it reach the line of scrimmage- no. Therefore = INTENTIONAL GROUNDING

    just b/c I don't LIKE the tuck rule doesn't mean that I said they interpereted it incorrectly. So again, what's the point of asking the question?

    And how does your argument have any logic?
    You are arguing that you don't like the rule because as Haloti just posted it is in the rule book. That is the tie in.

    Just because you don't like the rule because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that what you are saying is correct.

    Common sense says that if a guy is getting hit in the process of throwing the ball forward, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE...IMPOSSIBLE to assume he was throwing it to a particular spot. Why don't you go out in your back yard, get 2 of your neighbors with you. Have one stand 20 yards away and throw him the ball. Now have the second neighbor take a running start and hit you in your chest right as your arm starts to move forward and see how close you can get the ball you the guy standing 20 yards away. I bet you don't come close and some of the hits, you'd not be able to get the ball 5 yards.

    Thanks to Haloti...I'll repost it in bold

    Item 2: Physical Contact. Intentional grounding should not be called if:
    (a) the passer initiates his passing motion toward an eligible receiver and then is significantly affected
    by physical contact from a defensive player that causes the pass to land in an area that is not in the
    direction and vicinity of an eligible receiver; or
    (b) the passer is out of the pocket, and his passing motion is significantly affected by physical contact
    from a defensive player that causes the ball to land short of the line of scrimmage.





  2. #62

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Why don't you go out in your back yard, get 3 of your neighbors with you. Have one stand 20 yards away and throw him the ball. Now have the second neighbor take a running start and hit you in your chest right as your arm starts to move forward and see how close you can get the ball you the guy standing 20 yards away. And have the 3rd film the whole thing and post to YouTube. I bet you don't come close and some of the hits, you'd not be able to get the ball 5 yards.
    Fixed.




  3. #63

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

    Like I said, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other.

    But I don't think reposting the rule changes the fact that it was a discretionary call.

    Item 2: Physical Contact. Intentional grounding should not be called if:
    (a) the passer initiates his passing motion toward an eligible receiver and then is significantly affected
    by physical contact from a defensive player that causes the pass to land in an area that is not in the
    direction and vicinity of an eligible receiver; or
    (b) the passer is out of the pocket, and his passing motion is significantly affected by physical contact
    from a defensive player that causes the ball to land short of the line of scrimmage.

    The timing isn't right for (a) and the location - iirc he was not outside the tackle box; if he was, then (b) does apply - isn't right for (b).

    I'm willing to accept that there was a receiver somewhere in the area and that justified the non-call, but the rule quoted here is not dispositive.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  4. #64

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

    I don't understand how people are saying he was out of the pocket.

    Vick is a left, and to use a golf term, he pushed it, he didn't pull it. The ball travelled further to the outside of his throwing arm when he threw it, and it ended up on the ground between his Guard and tackle to that side.
    HIs LT, was assuredly closer to that close sideline then he was. I dfon't have to watch it again, it was clear to me.
    Now I didn't see McCoy's feet in my live watching of the game, maybe theey were there and the ball merely fell 90% short of it's destination, but again, he would have had to have been 20-30 yards from Vick not to be obvious on the screen.

    I'm with those that are saying this type of play is EXACTLY why the grounding rule was invented. Vick decided to dirt the ball to avoid getting a sack. He was NOT in the act of throwing untll he was about to go down.




  5. #65

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

    I plan on watching/recording the replay (tonight on NFLN at 9:30 p.m.) to completely settle my opinion, but in general, based on my fleeting memory, I agree with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by festivus View Post
    The timing isn't right for (a) and the location - iirc he was not outside the tackle box; if he was, then (b) does apply - isn't right for (b).
    and this:

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    I'm with those that are saying this type of play is EXACTLY why the grounding rule was invented. Vick decided to dirt the ball to avoid getting a sack. He was NOT in the act of throwing untll he was about to go down.
    I mentioned the rules above because it was this "Item" of the rule that Gerry Austin mentioned (if I recall) when he said at the time that it was not intentional grounding by rule. In other words, I seriously doubt the old officials would have called it either. But after I see the replay again maybe I would be willing to believe it wasn't even a close call and that Austin's on-the-fly verdict is not a good indicator of what might have been ruled had the old refs been working the game.

    Also, I am interested in how the play should be ruled in a situation where there MIGHT be a fumble (based on when the QB loses control of the ball, empty hand, etc) but if there is not a fumble then it is clear intentional grounding. In other words, can a ref throw a flag for intentional grounding and also rule it a fumble, then check to see which is the case (in review)? Or is the ref required to pick one or the other at the time and effectively eliminate the possibility of the other? You can't blow the whistle then see it is a fumble and do anything about it because the recovery would be moot after a whistle. Can you throw the flag, not blow the whistle, let the recovery happen, mark the spot of the recovery, make on-the-field ruling of intentional grounding, then check replay and declare fumble (overturn call) and spot where it was recovered? Maybe.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 09-18-2012 at 02:39 PM.




  6. #66

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    I don't understand how people are saying he was out of the pocket.

    Vick is a left, and to use a golf term, he pushed it, he didn't pull it. The ball travelled further to the outside of his throwing arm when he threw it, and it ended up on the ground between his Guard and tackle to that side.
    HIs LT, was assuredly closer to that close sideline then he was. I dfon't have to watch it again, it was clear to me.
    Now I didn't see McCoy's feet in my live watching of the game, maybe theey were there and the ball merely fell 90% short of it's destination, but again, he would have had to have been 20-30 yards from Vick not to be obvious on the screen.

    I'm with those that are saying this type of play is EXACTLY why the grounding rule was invented. Vick decided to dirt the ball to avoid getting a sack. He was NOT in the act of throwing untll he was about to go down.
    I just watched this again and anybody who watches that play again will see the truth.

    Vick was outside of the pocket by a good 4-5 yards.

    The Eagles got to inside the 5 due to that pass to Clay Harbor on the right sideline. On first down, from the right hash, it was a QB draw right up the middle on the right hash.

    On the second down play in question, the ball was lined up on the right hash again.

    The LT was aligned in the middle of the hash marks.

    The play was a designed rollout...Vick rolls out to his left...past the left hash...and stops about 2-3 yards past the left hash and is hit by Ngata.

    And Vick started his throwing motion before contact and was looking right at McCoy in the bottom corner.

    Bottom line, those of you who keep saying he was in the pocket, you need to watch it again.




  7. #67

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

    Go to the 2:33 mark in this video.

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/baltimore-...les-highlights




  8. #68

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    I just watched this again and anybody who watches that play again will see the truth.

    Vick was outside of the pocket by a good 4-5 yards.

    The Eagles got to inside the 5 due to that pass to Clay Harbor on the right sideline. On first down, from the right hash, it was a QB draw right up the middle on the right hash.

    On the second down play in question, the ball was lined up on the right hash again.

    The LT was aligned in the middle of the hash marks.

    The play was a designed rollout...Vick rolls out to his left...past the left hash...and stops about 2-3 yards past the left hash and is hit by Ngata.

    And Vick started his throwing motion before contact and was looking right at McCoy in the bottom corner.

    Bottom line, those of you who keep saying he was in the pocket, you need to watch it again.
    Admittedly, I have only seen it live.
    But the ball went left out of his left throwing hand, and landed inside of the Tackle.

    How is that possible if the tackle is not outside of him when he threw the ball?
    He may have rolled Left, btu the tackle had pulled further left then Vick did.

    Please explain, and I will admit I can be wrong, it's been two days, I only saw it once and I was not happy.




  9. #69

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    I just watched that video 15 to 20 times.
    I don't see even ONE thing you just pointed out.
    There was CLEARLY 2 Olinemen still outside of Vick.
    Vick had BARELY cocked his arm back by the time Ngata was driving him into the ground, no forward motion until after contact
    And the ball barely went to the same side of the field as Shady McCoy. I think ther eis still legitimately a question whether he should be considered an intended receiver. Vicks Throwing motion seemed more TO ME to be intending to dirt the ball roughly half the distance to Celek, rather then McCoy, who was admittedlyu the CLOSEST receiver.




  10. #70

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    Admittedly, I have only seen it live.
    But the ball went left out of his left throwing hand, and landed inside of the Tackle.

    How is that possible if the tackle is not outside of him when he threw the ball?
    He may have rolled Left, btu the tackle had pulled further left then Vick did.

    Please explain, and I will admit I can be wrong, it's been two days, I only saw it once and I was not happy.
    The pocket when it comes to intentional grounding does not move wherever the tackle ends up at the end of the play.

    It's from tackle to tackle at the snap of the ball.

    It was a roll out...the LT rolled with him.

    I may be wrong, but I don't see how the pocket gets larger solely depending on where the OT's wind up at the end of the play...or theoretically, you can have the entire field considered "in the pocket" if both tackles wind up at the opposite sidelines during the course of the play.

    At the start of the play, and for rules purposes, the pocket edge of the left side of the pocket is still where the LT originally ended up, not how far he rolled out with Vick to protect in a rollout.




  11. #71

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    I just watched that video 15 to 20 times.
    I don't see even ONE thing you just pointed out.
    There was CLEARLY 2 Olinemen still outside of Vick.
    Vick had BARELY cocked his arm back by the time Ngata was driving him into the ground, no forward motion until after contact
    And the ball barely went to the same side of the field as Shady McCoy. I think ther eis still legitimately a question whether he should be considered an intended receiver. Vicks Throwing motion seemed more TO ME to be intending to dirt the ball roughly half the distance to Celek, rather then McCoy, who was admittedlyu the CLOSEST receiver.
    Read my final post, rewatch the video and pay attention to where #77 is at the snap...THAT is the key, NOT how far he runs to the side at the snap.

    And yes, to a RAVENS fan, some of us are going to side with US...and that is not always the correct interpretation of the rule.

    That is why the rule is that if he is being hit, there is no intentional grounding because TO YOU, is not the same as TO ME, or the same as TO RANDOM PERSON X.




  12. #72

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    Yeah, that is how I remembered it except I thought he may have been at around the left hash (vs a yard outside of it). I knew the ball was snapped from the right hash, because I recalled they spotted it there after the whole fumble/IG play (because it was incomplete). I sort of assumed people had rewatched it and it was close but inside the tackles, when in fact it wasn't super-close and was outside the tackle box.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland