Doc Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 No one is arguing that doc. The point was made that the flag was thrown on Wilson but his receiver ran the wrong route. Rule says it doesn't matter if there is miscommunication between QB and WR. The rule, as it's almost always been called, is IG is waved-off if there is a receiver in the area and the ball isn't thrown OOB. If that's what happened in Wilson's case, it was another blown call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Eli heaved one up in the Giants game while facing backwards and being driven to the turf--no flag. Gimme a *%#*}{ng break.... That play was the definition of intentional grounding, no idea how that wasn't called as there wasn't a receiver even close to it not to mention he threw it facing wrong direction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 That play was the definition of intentional grounding, no idea how that wasn't called as there wasn't a receiver even close to it not to mention he threw it facing wrong direction I yelled at the TV. First time I've done it during a non Bills game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Paulson Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I yelled at the TV. First time I've done it during a non Bills game. i did also at a restaurant in Green Bay- the whole place looked at me like i was crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) The rule, as it's almost always been called, is IG is waved-off if there is a receiver in the area and the ball isn't thrown OOB. If that's what happened in Wilson's case, it was another blown call. Yes. Receiver has to be within 5 yards, I think. That's not what happened in Wilson's case Edited November 16, 2014 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 without seeing the play if it is thrown over the head out the back of the end zone, intentional grounding is not to be called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Rodgers just got called for grounding on a tipped/batted ball... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 The Orton throw landed only about 4 yards away from Sammy. Carey greatly embellished that description. Terrible call but the Bills should have been up by two TD's and never put themselves in that position. I'm not a fan of these grounding calls, if the opposing QB want's to give up a play as early as Orton.....or in todays game the IG on Russell Wilson....I say that's a win for the defense in itself. Now if the guy chucks it away as he's running for his life it's a different matter. The thing I find interesting in the KC game was that Orton didn't get called for what I believe could be considered intentional grounding. There were two plays I remember where Hali, I believe it was him, came underneath the screen route and Orton threw the ball at his feet. The RB was within 5 yards but looked as though the ball did not pass the line of scrimmage which from my understanding should be grounding. Correct me if I am wrong but since he was in the tackle box, the ball didn't pass the LOS and there was no realistic chance for the RB to catch the ball, that is technically IG right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 we werent gonna win that miami game anyway with our offense. the call doesn't hurt as bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Monkeyhead Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Intentional grounding. The first word of the rule is the one they are saying "doesn't matter". Ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Bridgewater's throw was 10 yards away. That was IG but no penalty. NFL has been good at deflecting criticism of the officiating but since the strike the calls have become more blatant and they can not hide from it. I love football but now the refs are ruining games. Pass interference. defensive holding and offensive holding are called very erratically. Time to clean up the mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talley56 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) I feel like in all my years of watching pro and college football any time there's a "mix-up" between a QB and receiver and the refs can see that they just simply weren't on the same page or the receiver ran the wrong route they do not throw the flag. I don't know where this whole idea suddenly came from out of nowhere just this week that it doesn't matter. Same goes for offensive PI. Ravens get a win taken away against Cincinnati and NO gets a win taken away against SF for offense PI calls that I feel like usually don't get called. We've had a few key questionable offensive PIs called on us this season in notable losses (vs NE and KC). Edited November 17, 2014 by Talley56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Easy way to fix this, or at least hedge against bad officiating. Intentional grounding (and any other penalty in the end zone) simply results in a loss of down, not a safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Not true, they will flag the Bills consistently on that play. I hate reading stuff like this when all i can do is realize the truth of it. Sure it does. If a receiver is in the area, it's not grounding. of course, it's relative, ya know. from different viewpoints a WR can look closer or further from the ball, thus allowing perfect inconsistency and an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Yes. Receiver has to be within 5 yards, I think. That's not what happened in Wilson's case No, there is no yard limit at all. It's a complete judgment call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I feel like in all my years of watching pro and college football any time there's a "mix-up" between a QB and receiver and the refs can see that they just simply weren't on the same page or the receiver ran the wrong route they do not throw the flag. I don't know where this whole idea suddenly came from out of nowhere just this week that it doesn't matter. Same goes for offensive PI. Ravens get a win taken away against Cincinnati and NO gets a win taken away against SF for offense PI calls that I feel like usually don't get called. We've had a few key questionable offensive PIs called on us this season in notable losses (vs NE and KC). not according to the Great Mike Carey! Intentional? Unintentional? Same thing! Just makin' up the rules as they go along.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 No, there is no yard limit at all. It's a complete judgment call. Carey mentioned 5 yards in the Bills game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Carey mentioned 5 yards in the Bills game. There is no 5 yard rule. Otherwise you would hear that every single time. It's a general feeling that is a reasonable amount of space but it is not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 There is no 5 yard rule. Otherwise you would hear that every single time. It's a general feeling that is a reasonable amount of space but it is not the rule. Yup. That may even be a cliffnote given at officials meetings but it's not written that way. Fox would have a little receiver halo they would bust out whenever in question if it was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Yup. That may even be a cliffnote given at officials meetings but it's not written that way. Fox would have a little receiver halo they would bust out whenever in question if it was Yup, you might be right. Carey definitely mentioned it in his explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts