(11-25-2018 06:16 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  The penalty is the same as a sack. How is that not really a penalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because in every other penalty the ball ends up being placed at a different spot for the next play or points are awarded for a few penalties that occur in the end zone. The penalty makes what would have happened even worse.

(11-25-2018 08:40 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 06:16 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  The penalty is the same as a sack. How is that not really a penalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because in every other penalty the ball ends up being placed at a different spot for the next play or points are awarded for a few penalties that occur in the end zone. The penalty makes what would have happened even worse.

Intentional Grounding in the end zone is a safety...are you entirely sure you understand the rule?

(11-25-2018 08:40 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 06:16 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  The penalty is the same as a sack. How is that not really a penalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because in every other penalty the ball ends up being placed at a different spot for the next play or points are awarded for a few penalties that occur in the end zone. The penalty makes what would have happened even worse.

And the ball is placed at a different spot for intentional grounding. It is a spot foul. The ball is placed at the spot of the foul and it is a loss of down. The offense losses distance and a down as opposed to just distance. The only other penalties that have the potential to be worse are illegal touching (depending upon where the foul occurred) and an illegal forward pass (a forward pass that is thrown when the player is beyond the line of scrimmage). Both of those carry a loss of down with any yardage. Those 3 penalties are the toughest that an offense can receive because you lose yardage (can vary in amount) and the right to replay the down. Basically, intentional grounding functions as a sack, which is what the QB was avoiding when he committed the penalty.

Getting the ball at half court after a TO only happens on one level of basketball. The NBA.

(11-25-2018 08:43 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 08:40 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 06:16 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  The penalty is the same as a sack. How is that not really a penalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because in every other penalty the ball ends up being placed at a different spot for the next play or points are awarded for a few penalties that occur in the end zone. The penalty makes what would have happened even worse.

Intentional Grounding in the end zone is a safety...are you entirely sure you understand the rule?

The further we go here the more convinced I am that he doesn't.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-26-2018 07:34 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 08:43 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 08:40 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 06:16 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  The penalty is the same as a sack. How is that not really a penalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because in every other penalty the ball ends up being placed at a different spot for the next play or points are awarded for a few penalties that occur in the end zone. The penalty makes what would have happened even worse.

Intentional Grounding in the end zone is a safety...are you entirely sure you understand the rule?

The further we go here the more convinced I am that he doesn't.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am with you. Not sure how he doesn't understand that losing yardage and down is not a stiff penalty. I was wondering if it was me and what I was thinking and what I was typing were completely different things.

I'm pretty sure I get the argument here. The concern is that if you look at it simply from a risk-reward standpoint, well-executed IG when you know you're going to get sacked carries no risk and holds the possibility of reward. (Although I would argue that in practice the possibility of an interception does make for some risk.) A QB who is perfect at throwing the ball away could arguably exploit the rules by always gambling that he might throw it where a ref thinks a receiver is close enough, thus never taking a sack.

I think WolfBird nailed it, though: It's too tough to call based on intent. The rules as written give a decent picture of how a play must happen to be considered IG, and there's no need to open the door to undeserved penalties just based on bad throws.

(11-26-2018 07:05 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  I'm pretty sure I get the argument here. The concern is that if you look at it simply from a risk-reward standpoint, well-executed IG when you know you're going to get sacked carries no risk and holds the possibility of reward. (Although I would argue that in practice the possibility of an interception does make for some risk.) A QB who is perfect at throwing the ball away could arguably exploit the rules by always gambling that he might throw it where a ref thinks a receiver is close enough, thus never taking a sack.

I think WolfBird nailed it, though: It's too tough to call based on intent. The rules as written give a decent picture of how a play must happen to be considered IG, and there's no need to open the door to undeserved penalties just based on bad throws.

Risk vs reward is what I am getting at. I don't think the penalty as written is hurtful enough to the offense. Make the risk harder to justify.

It would also not bother me to not have the penalty at all and if a QB gets rid of the ball then it is a pass.

(11-26-2018 08:18 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  

(11-26-2018 07:05 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  I'm pretty sure I get the argument here. The concern is that if you look at it simply from a risk-reward standpoint, well-executed IG when you know you're going to get sacked carries no risk and holds the possibility of reward. (Although I would argue that in practice the possibility of an interception does make for some risk.) A QB who is perfect at throwing the ball away could arguably exploit the rules by always gambling that he might throw it where a ref thinks a receiver is close enough, thus never taking a sack.

I think WolfBird nailed it, though: It's too tough to call based on intent. The rules as written give a decent picture of how a play must happen to be considered IG, and there's no need to open the door to undeserved penalties just based on bad throws.

Risk vs reward is what I am getting at. I don't think the penalty as written is hurtful enough to the offense. Make the risk harder to justify.

It would also not bother me to not have the penalty at all and if a QB gets rid of the ball then it is a pass.

What would you suggest the penalty be?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-26-2018 03:43 AM)eagleskins Wrote:  Getting the ball at half court after a TO only happens on one level of basketball. The NBA.

And this the THE reason I don't follow the NBA. OK not really but I really don't like rules that are carved out for a certain point in time and written to help one side of the play (the offense in this case.) If the rule is good enough for the end of the game then it is good enough for the entire game.

It makes for good TV. Timeouts are crucial in an NBA game. A team down by 7 or more with a minute or less on the clock has no shot virtually at all of winning a game in the college game, due to the shot clock, and the timeout rule. In the NBA, that kind of lead getting overturned happens frequently.

(11-26-2018 08:23 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(11-26-2018 08:18 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  

(11-26-2018 07:05 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  I'm pretty sure I get the argument here. The concern is that if you look at it simply from a risk-reward standpoint, well-executed IG when you know you're going to get sacked carries no risk and holds the possibility of reward. (Although I would argue that in practice the possibility of an interception does make for some risk.) A QB who is perfect at throwing the ball away could arguably exploit the rules by always gambling that he might throw it where a ref thinks a receiver is close enough, thus never taking a sack.

I think WolfBird nailed it, though: It's too tough to call based on intent. The rules as written give a decent picture of how a play must happen to be considered IG, and there's no need to open the door to undeserved penalties just based on bad throws.

Risk vs reward is what I am getting at. I don't think the penalty as written is hurtful enough to the offense. Make the risk harder to justify.

It would also not bother me to not have the penalty at all and if a QB gets rid of the ball then it is a pass.

What would you suggest the penalty be?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Loss of down and move the ball back another 5 yards from spot of infraction would work for me. In the end zone make it a safety of course. Anything that makes the offense worse off than had the infraction not occurred would work for me.

(11-27-2018 03:06 AM)eagleskins Wrote:  It makes for good TV. Timeouts are crucial in an NBA game. A team down by 7 or more with a minute or less on the clock has no shot virtually at all of winning a game in the college game, due to the shot clock, and the timeout rule. In the NBA, that kind of lead getting overturned happens frequently.

Then make it apply through out the game. It becomes part of game strategy. Want to avoid a press then call a TO vs or calling a TO and getting the ball across half-court in 10 seconds.

I know why they have the rule, I just prefer consistency in rules in when they are applied and not based on the game clock.