• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

NON - Intentional grounding calls in 4th Quarter

cpollock

cpollock

Well-known member
Forefather
Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
524
Points
113
SO can someone explain to me how they cannot make these calls ??
 
I don't think any of the others were as blatant as the one they finally did call.....
 
The definition of intentional grounding is throwing the ball to avoid a sack. The ball must also travel beyond the LOS. The last spike was definitely to avoid the sack, but he was out of the pocket and the ball did travel beyond the LOS. This is where Luck is smart. He understands the rules and he uses them to his advantage. Even on the Safety, he did throw the ball in the direction of a player, but it was to avoid a sack and it was 15 yds short of where the player actually was. I was surprised on the replay that it appeared that he may have released the football outside of the goal line, thus avoiding a safety. It was a good try to avoid a safety in that circumstance, but since the refs ruled the safety on the field, it was too close to be certain on the replay.
 
WTF was the "it was not intentional grounding because the RB was being held" non call? Now they are guessing that if the RB wasn't held, he may have been in the area where the QB spiked the ball. I swear they make **** up as they go, just like adding 5 yards to the end of a play for defensive holding. Wasn't there a holding call against the Colts that the Steelers declined and took 2 and short instead of 1st and 5 because of the field position?
 
I don't know; the one where he rolled to his left and spiked the ball into the turf just before he was about to get plastered looked awfully blatant to me.
 
To many ways to look at rules and each group of officials call differently. You would think the officials would see the same thing we see, as a QB is about to hit the ground just throws the ball, which Luck did a few times.
 
GMC said:
WTF was the "it was not intentional grounding because the RB was being held" non call? Now they are guessing that if the RB wasn't held, he may have been in the area where the QB spiked the ball. I swear they make **** up as they go, just like adding 5 yards to the end of a play for defensive holding. Wasn't there a holding call against the Colts that the Steelers declined and took 2 and short instead of 1st and 5 because of the field position?
Click to expand...

BS call.......no way Bradshaw would've gotten there regardless.
 
GMC said:
WTF was the "it was not intentional grounding because the RB was being held" non call? Now they are guessing that if the RB wasn't held, he may have been in the area where the QB spiked the ball. I swear they make **** up as they go, just like adding 5 yards to the end of a play for defensive holding. Wasn't there a holding call against the Colts that the Steelers declined and took 2 and short instead of 1st and 5 because of the field position?
Click to expand...

I agree you have a point here. You can't say the intentional grounding can't be called because the RB was held (which he wasn't, he was still at the LOS and is 100% able to be engaged by anyone at that point), because you get into a chicken or egg argument. The correct thing would have been to call both penalties, since they both occurred, and they would then offset. Holding does not change the fact that the QB decided to intentionally ground the ball to avoid a sack.
 
It's a Goodell-led conspiracy against the Steelers, plain and simple.
 
I think fans need to have a good read of the rule book and better yet the casebook which is far more revealing and call the league on some of its bullshit. I've never seen the call of holding eliminating intentional grounding. It may well be, but that is pretty obscure. I'd like to see that one in writing.
 
Hollywood Bags said:
It's a Goodell-led conspiracy against the Steelers, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
No it is Goodell trying to create outcomes of Manning, Brady and the rest winning championships instead of defense first teams like the Ravens and Seahawks. The Superbowl was embarrassing last year for fantasy video game football. What was the result?
 
Was the referee sound garbled at home on tv? Couldn't understand wtf was going on at the stadium I was in the closed end.. Cheryl?
 
GMC said:
WTF was the "it was not intentional grounding because the RB was being held" non call? Now they are guessing that if the RB wasn't held, he may have been in the area where the QB spiked the ball. I swear they make **** up as they go, just like adding 5 yards to the end of a play for defensive holding. Wasn't there a holding call against the Colts that the Steelers declined and took 2 and short instead of 1st and 5 because of the field position?
Click to expand...

It was a screen pass, Bradshaw was indeed held. He was grabbed as he tried to release. Had our guy just hit him, or stayed in front of him, it would have been fine. But he grabbed the jersey and impeded his process. By rule it's defensive holding (just like the call in the Lions Falcons game earlier in the day, the Falcons DL grabbed the center's jersey and pulled him back preventing him from getting to his block). In this instance, it was called correct.
 
insaniti said:
It was a screen pass, Bradshaw was indeed held. He was grabbed as he tried to release. Had our guy just hit him, or stayed in front of him, it would have been fine. But he grabbed the jersey and impeded his process. By rule it's defensive holding (just like the call in the Lions Falcons game earlier in the day, the Falcons DL grabbed the center's jersey and pulled him back preventing him from getting to his block). In this instance, it was called correct.
Click to expand...

I understand the holding call, but shouldn't there have been offsetting penalties? They just assume that Bradshaw would have ended up where the ball was grounded? How do they know he wasn't trying to release downfield instead of into the flat?
 
Also the safety was a safety regardless of the intentional grounding call. Luck was touched on the leg by a steeler's black glove while he was on his butt with the ball in the end zone. The announcers were too focused on the intentional grounding to notice
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMC
Cope said:
The definition of intentional grounding is throwing the ball to avoid a sack. The ball must also travel beyond the LOS. The last spike was definitely to avoid the sack, but he was out of the pocket and the ball did travel beyond the LOS. This is where Luck is smart. He understands the rules and he uses them to his advantage. Even on the Safety, he did throw the ball in the direction of a player, but it was to avoid a sack and it was 15 yds short of where the player actually was. I was surprised on the replay that it appeared that he may have released the football outside of the goal line, thus avoiding a safety. It was a good try to avoid a safety in that circumstance, but since the refs ruled the safety on the field, it was too close to be certain on the replay.
Click to expand...
The refs ruled intentional grounding. The loss of down coupled with Luck being on the ground the ball inside the goal line while being touched by a defender made the result a Safety. Brent Kiesel is smart too and that is what he was conveying to the referee. It's all about interpretation of the rules. Luck was pleading for he "receiver over there" but he was also on the ground sitting on the goal line (down) in contact with defenders and the ball was across the goal line. In effect, tackled with the ball in the end zone. Boinnng; A safety. Look at it any way you want the games over.
 
Cope said:
I agree you have a point here. You can't say the intentional grounding can't be called because the RB was held (which he wasn't, he was still at the LOS and is 100% able to be engaged by anyone at that point), because you get into a chicken or egg argument. The correct thing would have been to call both penalties, since they both occurred, and they would then offset. Holding does not change the fact that the QB decided to intentionally ground the ball to avoid a sack.
Click to expand...
Mrs. Burgundy and I were at the game, one of the worst officiated games I've ever seen. I told her it would be interesting to see what happened when they'd have to choose between a fumble or intentional grounding.
 
GMC said:
I understand the holding call, but shouldn't there have been offsetting penalties? They just assume that Bradshaw would have ended up where the ball was grounded? How do they know he wasn't trying to release downfield instead of into the flat?
Click to expand...

It's not offsetting when one penalty causes the other. And whether he was trying to release to the flat or down-field is irrelevant in this case. Luck was outside the pocket, and threw it into the ground "near" Bradshaw. If Bradshaw wasn't held, Luck would have tried to complete the pass, not spike it into the ground.
 
steelhurt said:
I don't know; the one where he rolled to his left and spiked the ball into the turf just before he was about to get plastered looked awfully blatant to me.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That one was a pretty clear grounding.
 
insaniti said:
It was a screen pass, Bradshaw was indeed held. He was grabbed as he tried to release. Had our guy just hit him, or stayed in front of him, it would have been fine. But he grabbed the jersey and impeded his process. By rule it's defensive holding (just like the call in the Lions Falcons game earlier in the day, the Falcons DL grabbed the center's jersey and pulled him back preventing him from getting to his block). In this instance, it was called correct.
Click to expand...

Right, no dispute, but intentional grounding is still intentional grounding when the pass is 5 yards short of the LOS. The defensive foul does not negate offensive penalties. Should have been offsetting penalties.
 
insaniti said:
It's not offsetting when one penalty causes the other. And whether he was trying to release to the flat or down-field is irrelevant in this case. Luck was outside the pocket, and threw it into the ground "near" Bradshaw. If Bradshaw wasn't held, Luck would have tried to complete the pass, not spike it into the ground.
Click to expand...

I'll have to go back and watch it again. I don't remember the ball being near Bradshaw.
 
insaniti said:
It's not offsetting when one penalty causes the other. And whether he was trying to release to the flat or down-field is irrelevant in this case. Luck was outside the pocket, and threw it into the ground "near" Bradshaw. If Bradshaw wasn't held, Luck would have tried to complete the pass, not spike it into the ground.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. I don't understand the inability by some to understand rules that have been in effect forever. Just like the rule that says you can't run out of bounds during a punt. BUT if you are being blocked out of bounds then the penalty is on the receiving team. They don't off set. You can't hold the RB on a screen... period.
 
Cope said:
I agree you have a point here. You can't say the intentional grounding can't be called because the RB was held (which he wasn't, he was still at the LOS and is 100% able to be engaged by anyone at that point), because you get into a chicken or egg argument. The correct thing would have been to call both penalties, since they both occurred, and they would then offset. Holding does not change the fact that the QB decided to intentionally ground the ball to avoid a sack.
Click to expand...

This is what I thought !! then again -- Roger might have called the head ref and said .. well they are winning by too much have to find a way to give them a chance to come back --- (Just kidding sort of )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top