|
Replies: 11
| visibility 701
|
Team Captain [465]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 226
Joined: 7/29/14
|
Intentional grounding should be a bigger penalty
1
Sep 29, 2023, 10:00 PM
|
|
Intentional Grounding seems to really be the only penalty that... isn't actually a penalty. I mean, it's identical to taking a sack - loss of down and ball at the spot of the throw. So there is no incentive at all to not intentionally ground.
It feels like it should be that plus 5 or 10 yards, to discourage it. Too many people just tossing the ball away right now.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4550
Joined: 3/6/01
|
Loss of down can be a big penalty***
Sep 29, 2023, 11:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1752
Joined: 11/20/07
|
Re: Loss of down can be a big penalty***
Sep 30, 2023, 12:55 AM
|
|
They don’t take an extra down away. You just don’t get to replay the down. The OP is correct. You’re better off intentionally grounding it over taking a sack, because they might not catch it and throw a flag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3008]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2433
Joined: 8/31/14
|
Re: Intentional grounding should be a bigger penalty
Sep 29, 2023, 11:24 PM
|
|
Isn’t it a spot foul in the NFL? Line of scrimmage is moved to where the QB grounded it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23057]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5913
Joined: 3/28/09
|
It kinda is a penalty
Sep 29, 2023, 11:45 PM
|
|
If the ref doesn't call intentional grounding, the ball is placed back at the line of scrimmage. So the penalty is basically how much yardage the offense loses and the down of course. The defender should also be credited with a sack though.
Remember when Ruke Orhorhoro busted through the line and clotheslined Rattler and he tried to throw it away and got intentional grounding called? That's the only time I think I've ever seen intentional grounding result in a safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5520]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4994
Joined: 10/21/15
|
Re: Intentional grounding should be a bigger penalty
1
Sep 29, 2023, 11:48 PM
|
|
100% agree!
Take a sack or intentional ground it. The end result is identical. There is no risk to grounding.
It should be at least -5 yards along with loss of down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3227]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4096
Joined: 6/24/23
|
Re: Intentional grounding should be a bigger penalty
Sep 30, 2023, 1:11 AM
|
|
Loss of down and sack is huge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2423]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 4111
Joined: 4/12/10
|
Re: Intentional grounding should be a bigger penalty
Sep 30, 2023, 3:08 AM
|
|
I agree, 5 yards plus the loss of down . . and the 5 yrds from where the pass was thrown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1113]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1940
Joined: 7/8/99
|
In the GOOD OLE DAYS of the 70s it was and additional 5 yds from the spot of the foul.***
Sep 30, 2023, 7:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3083]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 3574
Joined: 11/24/17
|
Re: Intentional grounding should be a bigger penalty
1
Sep 30, 2023, 7:37 AM
|
|
I haven't given this much thought (and that may be reflected in my reponse) but...maybe the rulesmakers are looking at this in terms of safety. If the penalty for grounding is too severe, loss of what would be sack yardage plus loss of down plus another 5 or 10 yards, QBs may be more inclined to hold on to the ball and take hits instead of throwing it away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [695]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1440
Joined: 10/8/02
|
Unintentional targeting should be less of a penalty.
1
Sep 30, 2023, 7:38 AM
|
|
10 yards, no ejection, move along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [65764]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33320
Joined: 12/3/03
|
It should be a drive killer, 15 yards from the previous spot
Sep 30, 2023, 9:20 AM
|
|
AND loss of down. Reward the defense for making a play, and force the offense to do something heroic on the next play to maintain possession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 11
| visibility 701
|
|
|
50
