Intentional grounding (1 Viewer)

[ghostguy123]

Radical idea.
Get rid of intentional grounding penalties.
It's just one less thing officials can screw up due to incompetence or bias, plus it might even lead to better offense and more scoring.

 

[eighsse2]

Radical idea.
Get rid of intentional grounding penalties.
It's just one less thing officials can screw up due to incompetence or bias, plus it might even lead to better offense and more scoring.

My first thought is loopholes that the intentional grounding penalty might be keeping closed. What ways could a QB take advantage of that? Run all over the field, just waiting for something good to happen, backwards whenever necessary, knowing that he can spike it at any time without penalty (as long as he doesn't get blindsided). Or a RB or WR could do the same thing if there had not been a forward pass yet.

 

[ghostguy123]

Radical idea.
Get rid of intentional grounding penalties.
It's just one less thing officials can screw up due to incompetence or bias, plus it might even lead to better offense and more scoring.

My first thought is loopholes that the intentional grounding penalty might be keeping closed. What ways could a QB take advantage of that? Run all over the field, just waiting for something good to happen, backwards whenever necessary, knowing that he can spike it at any time without penalty (as long as he doesn't get blindsided). Or a RB or WR could do the same thing if there had not been a forward pass yet.

I'm more than willing to find out what advantage can come of it, and how it would play out. I have always thought it was a stupid penalty anyway

 

[Ghost Rider]

Hell no.

The offense already has so many advantages nowadays, and sacking the QB would be nearly impossible more often than not without the penalty as QBs could just chuck it at the ground any time they feel pressure.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I absolutely hated it when they changed the rule to the "outside the tackle box and get the ball to the line of scrimmage." Defense is playing great and the offense gets bailed out because of the rule. More scoring doesn't mean better game.

 

[eighsse2]

I am not necessarily on the side of "more offense" or "less offense". But definitely not on the side of "more offense is just better". That's silly. Not saying I dislike the idea of dropping the penalty. Neutral on that.

 

[ghostguy123]

I am not necessarily on the side of "more offense" or "less offense". But definitely not on the side of "more offense is just better". That's silly. Not saying I dislike the idea of dropping the penalty. Neutral on that.

I'm more on the side of less ways for refs to F up games

 

[eighsse2]

I am not necessarily on the side of "more offense" or "less offense". But definitely not on the side of "more offense is just better". That's silly. Not saying I dislike the idea of dropping the penalty. Neutral on that.

I'm more on the side of less ways for refs to F up games

That part I like.

 

[zed2283]

I don't like the way they've been calling it recently, where the receiver goes one way and the QB throws it the other, not under duress, yet the flag comes out.

 

[JohnnyU]

The more athletic QBs have easy enough already to throw the ball away these days. I think they should call it more often when it's obvious. Calling a player in the vicinity looks ridiculously wrong a lot of the time. I know it is very subjective sometimes however.

 

[ghostguy123]

The more athletic QBs have easy enough already to throw the ball away these days. I think they should call it more often when it's obvious. Calling a player in the vicinity looks ridiculously wrong a lot of the time. I know it is very subjective sometimes however.

They need to take more subjectivity out of it, but instead they just seem to keep adding more.
I can't believe the refs do as well as they do, even though I love to say they suck

 

[apalmer]

I am not necessarily on the side of "more offense" or "less offense". But definitely not on the side of "more offense is just better". That's silly. Not saying I dislike the idea of dropping the penalty. Neutral on that.

I'm more on the side of less ways for refs to F up games

Just do away with all penalties then.

 

[eighsse2]

I am not necessarily on the side of "more offense" or "less offense". But definitely not on the side of "more offense is just better". That's silly. Not saying I dislike the idea of dropping the penalty. Neutral on that.

I'm more on the side of less ways for refs to F up games

Just do away with all penalties then.

Right, point taken, it must be a net positive change. It's not "do anything and everything to avoid the refs messing up the game".

 

[ghostguy123]

I am not necessarily on the side of "more offense" or "less offense". But definitely not on the side of "more offense is just better". That's silly. Not saying I dislike the idea of dropping the penalty. Neutral on that.

I'm more on the side of less ways for refs to F up games

Just do away with all penalties then.

Thanks for making an extreme example

 

[5-ish Finkle]

More scoring doesn't mean better game.

It doesn't, but your first mistake is thinking the league wants a "better game."

The league wants a more popular game, with 10s of millions of eyeballs glued to their incessant ads weekly. They've achieved that.

If getting an extra TD per week allowed the owners to sell 10 more seconds of ad time, they'll find ways to engineer it at this point. All those handies Robert Kraft/et al get in a week aint gonna pay for themselves.

 

[travdogg]

I think changing the rule to just, "The ball has to cross the line of scrimmage" would take a lot of the subjectiveness out of it.

Personally, the one I hate the most is the failed screen where the QB just spikes it. That should be grounding in my opinion.

 

[jon007]

If they removed the intentional grounding penalty. In theory no QB should ever be sacked.

 

[Snoopy]

There is a formal proposal that if the ball reached the line of scrimmage there would be no grounding, even if the QB remained inside the tackle box.

 

[The Duff Man]

Something needs to change. Intentional grounding happens all the time. The smarter the QB is, the more it happens.

The only debate is whether the QB grounded it in such a way as to avoid the flag.

Dumb rule

 

[ghostguy123]

I could live with that

There is a formal proposal that if the ball reached the line of scrimmage there would be no grounding, even if the QB remained inside the tackle box.

I could live with that. It's even challengable

 

[Cowboysfan8]

I am not necessarily on the side of "more offense" or "less offense". But definitely not on the side of "more offense is just better". That's silly. Not saying I dislike the idea of dropping the penalty. Neutral on that.

I'm more on the side of less ways for refs to F up games

I feel like this is one of the fouls they usually get correct one way or another

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

More scoring doesn't mean better game.

It doesn't, but your first mistake is thinking the league wants a "better game."

The league wants a more popular game, with 10s of millions of eyeballs glued to their incessant ads weekly. They've achieved that.

If getting an extra TD per week allowed the owners to sell 10 more seconds of ad time, they'll find ways to engineer it at this point. All those handies Robert Kraft/et al get in a week aint gonna pay for themselves.

Small nitpick: the NFL doesn’t make money off ads (other than on NFL Network). They make money off of TV rights they sell to the networks, who in turn make money off ads, carriage fees (ESPN) and subscription fees (Amazon/Peacock)

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I absolutely hated it when they changed the rule to the "outside the tackle box and get the ball to the line of scrimmage." Defense is playing great and the offense gets bailed out because of the rule. More scoring doesn't mean better game.

I have a distinct memory of a Redskins game in the ‘80s where RB Joe Washington took a handoff, got chased back like 20-30 yards as he tried to avoid being tackled, and then, just as he was going out of bounds, tossed the ball at the feet of a TE who was blocking a few yards in front of him . Incomplete pass, Skins get the ball at the original LOS instead of suffering a catastrophic loss of yardage. The play always stuck in my memory because it was so heads up.

But under today’s rules, that would be IG because it didn’t make it back to the LOS, right?

 

[zed2283]

I absolutely hated it when they changed the rule to the "outside the tackle box and get the ball to the line of scrimmage." Defense is playing great and the offense gets bailed out because of the rule. More scoring doesn't mean better game.

I have a distinct memory of a Redskins game in the ‘80s where RB Joe Washington took a handoff, got chased back like 20-30 yards as he tried to avoid being tackled, and then, just as he was going out of bounds, tossed the ball at the feet of a TE who was blocking a few yards in front of him . Incomplete pass, Skins get the ball at the original LOS instead of suffering a catastrophic loss of yardage. The play always stuck in my memory because it was so heads up.

But under today’s rules, that would be IG because it didn’t make it back to the LOS, right?

No, because a receiver was in the area.

 

[rockaction]

No, because a receiver was in the area.

I was just reading and about to post similar reasoning behind my "no."

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I absolutely hated it when they changed the rule to the "outside the tackle box and get the ball to the line of scrimmage." Defense is playing great and the offense gets bailed out because of the rule. More scoring doesn't mean better game.

I have a distinct memory of a Redskins game in the ‘80s where RB Joe Washington took a handoff, got chased back like 20-30 yards as he tried to avoid being tackled, and then, just as he was going out of bounds, tossed the ball at the feet of a TE who was blocking a few yards in front of him . Incomplete pass, Skins get the ball at the original LOS instead of suffering a catastrophic loss of yardage. The play always stuck in my memory because it was so heads up.

But under today’s rules, that would be IG because it didn’t make it back to the LOS, right?

No, because a receiver was in the area.

This is the thing I can never keep straight. It has to reach the LOS or a receiver has to be in the vicinity? I thought you needed both, not just one

 

[rockaction]

I thought you needed both, not just one

99.99% sure that you only need one. Remember, though, that the QB can only throw the ball away past the line of scrimmage if the QB is outside the tackle box. Otherwise, he can't just throw the ball away if he's still in the pocket. Important to remember that in order to be able throw the ball away without drawing a flag (throw it obviously to nobody, that is), the QB has to be outside of the tackle box and he has to get the ball back past the line of scrimmage in the air.

Or the QB can throw to an eligible receiver wherever the receiver is, even if it is behind the line.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I absolutely hated it when they changed the rule to the "outside the tackle box and get the ball to the line of scrimmage." Defense is playing great and the offense gets bailed out because of the rule. More scoring doesn't mean better game.

I have a distinct memory of a Redskins game in the ‘80s where RB Joe Washington took a handoff, got chased back like 20-30 yards as he tried to avoid being tackled, and then, just as he was going out of bounds, tossed the ball at the feet of a TE who was blocking a few yards in front of him . Incomplete pass, Skins get the ball at the original LOS instead of suffering a catastrophic loss of yardage. The play always stuck in my memory because it was so heads up.

But under today’s rules, that would be IG because it didn’t make it back to the LOS, right?

I believe only a QB can use the rules to avoid intentional grounding...don't think it applies to any other position player.

 

[zed2283]

I absolutely hated it when they changed the rule to the "outside the tackle box and get the ball to the line of scrimmage." Defense is playing great and the offense gets bailed out because of the rule. More scoring doesn't mean better game.

I have a distinct memory of a Redskins game in the ‘80s where RB Joe Washington took a handoff, got chased back like 20-30 yards as he tried to avoid being tackled, and then, just as he was going out of bounds, tossed the ball at the feet of a TE who was blocking a few yards in front of him . Incomplete pass, Skins get the ball at the original LOS instead of suffering a catastrophic loss of yardage. The play always stuck in my memory because it was so heads up.

But under today’s rules, that would be IG because it didn’t make it back to the LOS, right?

I believe only a QB can use the rules to avoid intentional grounding...don't think it applies to any other position player.

I think it applies to any "passer."

 

[titusbramble]

Game is already far, far too imbalanced in favour of the offense, no thanks