![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs a few improvements, if not a complete re-write. Some of the problems I noticed:
It is common for the penalty to be reviewed after the play, as there are numerous things to consider.
Penalties generally aren't reviewable, except inasmuch as an element of the penalty is an objective determination, so maybe grounding can be reviewed as to whether the pass crossed the line of scrimmage, whether the ball was tipped, etc., but, regardless, I don't think such reviews are especially common.
The quarterback receives the snap, doesn't move, and throws the ball deep to the right side. Not a single receiver is close to the ball. The penalty should be called for intentional grounding, as no receiver was near the throw.
Why would this be intentional grounding? It says in the article that it's not a penalty if there's no "imminent pressure".
The quarterback throws a pass which is quickly tipped and falls on the ground. No penalty should be called on a tipped ball in any situation.
Is this true? It makes sense (referees shouldn't be charged with predicting where a tipped pass was intended to go), but the tipped pass exception isn't mentioned elsewhere.
Also, is the rule different under different sets of rules (NFL, CFL, NCAA, etc.)? Even if it isn't, this should be noted in the article. Jwsinclair ( talk) 16:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Late in the 2012 regular season, Nick Foles of the Philadelphia Eagles was called for intentional grounding, on an incomplete pass which did not reach line of scrimmage. Besides the penalty, a clock runoff was assessed, ending the game because there were no more than 10 seconds left on the (4th quarter) clock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 18:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote this article in order to:
I worked from the existing text. There was an official NFL rulebook handy; it did not provide further clarification, but I cite it and quote it in two places. I made one substantive change: to note that the ten-second runoff is not specific to intentional grounding. I left Examples unchanged. It might not add anything and it might be original research.
Regarding Jwsinclair's comments above: (1) I do think it is common for referees to discuss this and sometimes "pick up the flag." (2) An immediate long pass to no one, before an imminent tackle, is a violation though a spike is not, because the exception to the intentional grounding rule (NFL Rule 8-3-1, Note 4) permits only the spike. (3) The tipped pass is now covered in the description. (In my first edit, I thought it meant tipped by the receiver rather than deflected by a defender.) I don't see it in the rulebook, except the part of Note 1 that calls for the ref to give the QB the benefit of the doubt. (4) I don't know how the rules of other leagues differ, but agree that that is worth mentioning. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 15:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Repeating from the previous section: Given the rewrite of this article, everything in Examples is simply a restatement. Without objection in two days, I'll delete this section. Spike-from-NH ( talk) [15:39, 19 February 2014]
@ Sm5574: The first part of your edit, I retained (except for the addition of the italics). Your rephrasing was useful as my statement on ten-second runoff was too categorical. The second part of your edit, which made an exception for spiking the ball, I reverted. Spiking was set out as an exception early in Elements. (I made it a separate paragraph to call attention to it.) Spiking is not intentional grounding at all, and it is messy to call it out as an exception in the discussion of ten-second runoff.
As an intermediate edit, I moved spiking to a new section down below, but that made things less clear and I undid that. It is cleaner if we state the exception for intentional grounding of spiking the football in a single place. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 03:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Spike-from-NH I don't know the season, but in a game against Cleveland, Patrick Mahomes was penalized for intentional grounding for spiking the ball while the clock was not running. Someone more knowledgeable than I should look into this. Angiest ( talk) 01:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussing the motivation for the intentional grounding rule, the article had:
Sm5574 changed the text shown in orange to read, "would return the dead ball" - arguing by Edit Summary that "An incomplete pass does not technically advance the ball" and that his text is "technically correct and not confusing." All true on its face; but this is not a discussion of the effect of an incomplete pass; it is a comparison between the yardage lost by the hypothetical sack and the restoration of the spot by contriving an incomplete pass. The bottom line: the rule exists to deny the quarterback a sham tactic by which to advance the ball. Anyone else care to weigh in? Spike-from-NH ( talk) 00:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs a few improvements, if not a complete re-write. Some of the problems I noticed:
It is common for the penalty to be reviewed after the play, as there are numerous things to consider.
Penalties generally aren't reviewable, except inasmuch as an element of the penalty is an objective determination, so maybe grounding can be reviewed as to whether the pass crossed the line of scrimmage, whether the ball was tipped, etc., but, regardless, I don't think such reviews are especially common.
The quarterback receives the snap, doesn't move, and throws the ball deep to the right side. Not a single receiver is close to the ball. The penalty should be called for intentional grounding, as no receiver was near the throw.
Why would this be intentional grounding? It says in the article that it's not a penalty if there's no "imminent pressure".
The quarterback throws a pass which is quickly tipped and falls on the ground. No penalty should be called on a tipped ball in any situation.
Is this true? It makes sense (referees shouldn't be charged with predicting where a tipped pass was intended to go), but the tipped pass exception isn't mentioned elsewhere.
Also, is the rule different under different sets of rules (NFL, CFL, NCAA, etc.)? Even if it isn't, this should be noted in the article. Jwsinclair ( talk) 16:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Late in the 2012 regular season, Nick Foles of the Philadelphia Eagles was called for intentional grounding, on an incomplete pass which did not reach line of scrimmage. Besides the penalty, a clock runoff was assessed, ending the game because there were no more than 10 seconds left on the (4th quarter) clock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 18:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote this article in order to:
I worked from the existing text. There was an official NFL rulebook handy; it did not provide further clarification, but I cite it and quote it in two places. I made one substantive change: to note that the ten-second runoff is not specific to intentional grounding. I left Examples unchanged. It might not add anything and it might be original research.
Regarding Jwsinclair's comments above: (1) I do think it is common for referees to discuss this and sometimes "pick up the flag." (2) An immediate long pass to no one, before an imminent tackle, is a violation though a spike is not, because the exception to the intentional grounding rule (NFL Rule 8-3-1, Note 4) permits only the spike. (3) The tipped pass is now covered in the description. (In my first edit, I thought it meant tipped by the receiver rather than deflected by a defender.) I don't see it in the rulebook, except the part of Note 1 that calls for the ref to give the QB the benefit of the doubt. (4) I don't know how the rules of other leagues differ, but agree that that is worth mentioning. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 15:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Repeating from the previous section: Given the rewrite of this article, everything in Examples is simply a restatement. Without objection in two days, I'll delete this section. Spike-from-NH ( talk) [15:39, 19 February 2014]
@ Sm5574: The first part of your edit, I retained (except for the addition of the italics). Your rephrasing was useful as my statement on ten-second runoff was too categorical. The second part of your edit, which made an exception for spiking the ball, I reverted. Spiking was set out as an exception early in Elements. (I made it a separate paragraph to call attention to it.) Spiking is not intentional grounding at all, and it is messy to call it out as an exception in the discussion of ten-second runoff.
As an intermediate edit, I moved spiking to a new section down below, but that made things less clear and I undid that. It is cleaner if we state the exception for intentional grounding of spiking the football in a single place. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 03:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Spike-from-NH I don't know the season, but in a game against Cleveland, Patrick Mahomes was penalized for intentional grounding for spiking the ball while the clock was not running. Someone more knowledgeable than I should look into this. Angiest ( talk) 01:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussing the motivation for the intentional grounding rule, the article had:
Sm5574 changed the text shown in orange to read, "would return the dead ball" - arguing by Edit Summary that "An incomplete pass does not technically advance the ball" and that his text is "technically correct and not confusing." All true on its face; but this is not a discussion of the effect of an incomplete pass; it is a comparison between the yardage lost by the hypothetical sack and the restoration of the spot by contriving an incomplete pass. The bottom line: the rule exists to deny the quarterback a sham tactic by which to advance the ball. Anyone else care to weigh in? Spike-from-NH ( talk) 00:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)