Rule Questions (Tuck/Intentional Grounding)

[co_springs_billsfan]

I've seen this several times in the past few years, but asking about a situation like Dewayne Carter's fumble recovery for a touchdown that was overturned yesterday. 

 

First of all, I thought the tuck rule had been eliminated and it seemed on the replays that the quarterback had decided against throwing the ball and was trying to pull the ball back to his body. Is this not what the tuck rule was and should have resulted in a fumble? 

 

Second part of the question, if the tuck rule does not apply and the officials can go back and call it an incomplete pass, I've never seen them in this situation assess an intentional grounding penalty. It seems to me in these situations where a fumble is turned into an incomplete pass that there is almost never a receiver in the area. Are they not allowed to assess a penalty retroactively? Or is there some other reason why this isn't a penalty?

[eSJayDee]

In this case, the ball went backwards, so it's a lateral, not a pass.  So any tuck rule is not applicable.  You do have a valid point that when they abort a forward throw & it goes straight in the ground near them there likely isn't a receiver in the area & if the throw was not altered by contact w/ a defender, I think it should be grounding but I don't recall it ever being called (though throwing into the ground doesn't occur frequently).  (ie refs aren't supposed to interpret intent, ie like when a receiver runs a wrong route)

[co_springs_billsfan]

2 hours ago, eSJayDee said:

In this case, the ball went backwards, so it's a lateral, not a pass.  So any tuck rule is not applicable.  You do have a valid point that when they abort a forward throw & it goes straight in the ground near them there likely isn't a receiver in the area & if the throw was not altered by contact w/ a defender, I think it should be grounding but I don't recall it ever being called (though throwing into the ground doesn't occur frequently).  (ie refs aren't supposed to interpret intent, ie like when a receiver runs a wrong route)

If it goes backwards it can't be an incomplete pass, it's a fumble every time.  The 'incomplete pass' stems from the arm/ball moving forward when the ball is 'thrown'

[SoCal Deek]

I’ve always felt the problem is the word “intentional”. It has no meaning at all anymore. It did when the rule was first created. Then along came Tom Brady and the entire idea went out the proverbial window. 

[SoMAn]

I’ve never understood how ‘clocking’ the ball is not intentional grounding, or at the very least, delay of game or unsportsmanlike conduct. 
It’s obviously a desperation action to save seconds from ticking off the clock. The team spiking the ball is trading a down for an unofficial time out.
How is that within the spirit of the game? 
 

[eSJayDee]

40 minutes ago, SoMAn said:

I’ve never understood how ‘clocking’ the ball is not intentional grounding, or at the very least, delay of game or unsportsmanlike conduct. 
It’s obviously a desperation action to save seconds from ticking off the clock. The team spiking the ball is trading a down for an unofficial time out.
How is that within the spirit of the game? 
 

It used to be that you indeed, did need to throw a "real" pass, usually a quick out way over the rcvrs head & well OB.  At some point, they allowed offenses to merely "clock" the ball when it's apparent that's what the intent is.  You bring up a valid point that it is arguably "unsportsmanlike" & NOT in the spirit of the game.

[Tuco]

2 hours ago, SoMAn said:

I’ve never understood how ‘clocking’ the ball is not intentional grounding, or at the very least, delay of game or unsportsmanlike conduct. 
It’s obviously a desperation action to save seconds from ticking off the clock. The team spiking the ball is trading a down for an unofficial time out.
How is that within the spirit of the game? 
 

There's at least two reasons. One is because they rule book clearly says it's legal to spike the ball in order to stop the clock.

 

Item 3. Stopping Clock. A player under center is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if, immediately upon receiving the snap, he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly into the ground.

 

Two is because spiking the ball in order to stop the clock doesn't fit the criteria for an intentional grounding foul.

 

ARTICLE 1. DEFINITION. It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

 

And yes, as pointed out in the post above, there was a time when the rule book did not allow for a spike to stop the clock. You had to snap the ball and then throw it over a receiver's head and out of bounds or at his feet. Everybody realized they were just unnecessarily chasing footballs around so they implemented the spike rule.

Edited August 18 by Tuco

[SoMAn]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

There's at least two reasons. One is because they rule book clearly says it's legal to spike the ball in order to stop the clock.

 

Item 3. Stopping Clock. A player under center is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if, immediately upon receiving the snap, he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly into the ground.

 

Two is because spiking the ball in order to stop the clock doesn't fit the criteria for an intentional grounding foul.

 

ARTICLE 1. DEFINITION. It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

 

And yes, as pointed out in the post above, there was a time when the rule book did not allow for a spike to stop the clock. You had to snap the ball and then throw it over a receiver's head and out of bounds or at his feet. Everybody realized they were just unnecessarily chasing footballs around so they implemented the spike rule.

There’s no dispute that it’s within the rules. My stance is that it’s contrary to:

 

1. The number of allotted timeouts, allowing a ‘work-around’ to stop the clock. 

2. Being penalized for deliberately throwing the ball to nobody to avoid a sack (and loss of yards). 

 

I understand we’ve all become accustomed to the act, but It just strikes me as a strange that it’s a legal part of the game.