Talk:Intentional grounding

[untitled]

This article needs a few improvements, if not a complete re-write. Some of the problems I noticed:

It is common for the penalty to be reviewed after the play, as there are numerous things to consider.
Penalties generally aren't reviewable, except inasmuch as an element of the penalty is an objective determination, so maybe grounding can be reviewed as to whether the pass crossed the line of scrimmage, whether the ball was tipped, etc., but, regardless, I don't think such reviews are especially common.

The quarterback receives the snap, doesn't move, and throws the ball deep to the right side. Not a single receiver is close to the ball. The penalty should be called for intentional grounding, as no receiver was near the throw.
Why would this be intentional grounding? It says in the article that it's not a penalty if there's no "imminent pressure".

The quarterback throws a pass which is quickly tipped and falls on the ground. No penalty should be called on a tipped ball in any situation.
Is this true? It makes sense (referees shouldn't be charged with predicting where a tipped pass was intended to go), but the tipped pass exception isn't mentioned elsewhere.

Also, is the rule different under different sets of rules (NFL, CFL, NCAA, etc.)? Even if it isn't, this should be noted in the article. Jwsinclair (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

10 second runoff applied in a case in the NFL

Late in the 2012 regular season, Nick Foles of the Philadelphia Eagles was called for intentional grounding, on an incomplete pass which did not reach line of scrimmage. Besides the penalty, a clock runoff was assessed, ending the game because there were no more than 10 seconds left on the (4th quarter) clock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems covered now at Penalty (gridiron football)#The ten-second runoff rule. Spike-from-NH (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten

I rewrote this article in order to:

• Reduce the introduction to a summary of the essence of the infraction and the reason for having it.
• Use section organization to present first the definition of the infraction and, later, the penalty. The definition seems to have two parts: Non-"tackle-box" infractions and infractions that are excused by scrambling out of the "tackle box."
• Use bulleted lists in two cases where there are multiple components to a description.

I worked from the existing text. There was an official NFL rulebook handy; it did not provide further clarification, but I cite it and quote it in two places. I made one substantive change: to note that the ten-second runoff is not specific to intentional grounding. I left Examples unchanged. It might not add anything and it might be original research.

Regarding Jwsinclair's comments above: (1) I do think it is common for referees to discuss this and sometimes "pick up the flag." (2) An immediate long pass to no one, before an imminent tackle, is a violation though a spike is not, because the exception to the intentional grounding rule (NFL Rule 8-3-1, Note 4) permits only the spike. (3) The tipped pass is now covered in the description. (In my first edit, I thought it meant tipped by the receiver rather than deflected by a defender.) I don't see it in the rulebook, except the part of Note 1 that calls for the ref to give the QB the benefit of the doubt. (4) I don't know how the rules of other leagues differ, but agree that that is worth mentioning. Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The examples

Repeating from the previous section: Given the rewrite of this article, everything in Examples is simply a restatement. Without objection in two days, I'll delete this section. Spike-from-NH (talk) [15:39, 19 February 2014]

Spiking

@Sm5574: The first part of your edit, I retained (except for the addition of the italics). Your rephrasing was useful as my statement on ten-second runoff was too categorical. The second part of your edit, which made an exception for spiking the ball, I reverted. Spiking was set out as an exception early in Elements. (I made it a separate paragraph to call attention to it.) Spiking is not intentional grounding at all, and it is messy to call it out as an exception in the discussion of ten-second runoff.

As an intermediate edit, I moved spiking to a new section down below, but that made things less clear and I undid that. It is cleaner if we state the exception for intentional grounding of spiking the football in a single place. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is with the concept of clock management. Spiking the ball is grounding the ball intentionally, so it is an intentional grounding of the ball but not the penalty of the same name (hence the italics), and it is almost exclusively used for clock management. Thus, it absolutely makes sense to at least mention it there and in fact may be somewhat confusing without it. There doesn't have to be a full blown explanation, but there should be something. Perhaps something along the lines of "While spiking the ball may be used to legally stop the clock (see above), the penalty of intentional grounding is not an effective means of clock management, since...."--Sm5574 (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The article exists to document the penalty of the same name, and not discuss every case where the ball touches the ground and it is intentional. For example, spiking the ball in the end zone following a touchdown is "intentional grounding" but does not belong in the article except through some bizarre free-association. I like your proposed wording above, though the start up to the comma still strikes me as redundant. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Very well. I believe it is sufficient to specify that the penalty is what is not effective clock management. I have made that change, and I made a slight clarification about spiking the ball in regard to timeouts.--Sm5574 (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me make one last hack, as we can make the earlier point without speculating on state of mind. Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

When clock was not running

@Spike-from-NH I don't know the season, but in a game against Cleveland, Patrick Mahomes was penalized for intentional grounding for spiking the ball while the clock was not running. Someone more knowledgeable than I should look into this. Angiest (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Angiest, we would need a solid reference for that. If "the clock was not running" means it was between plays (or the play was blown dead before he spiked it), then it should have been a Delay of Game penalty. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Sm5574 (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Angiest: Found a citation at NBC Sports; I don't see the author's name. See new Note [a]. I believe an oddity like this deserves to be hidden in a footnote. I did not succeed in coding a Note that has a Reference, so I put it in-line. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"Advancing" the ball

Discussing the motivation for the intentional grounding rule, the article had:

Were it not for this rule, the quarterback could easily turn the sack into an incomplete pass which, by rule, would advance the ball back to the line of scrimmage and stop the clock.

Sm5574 changed the text shown in orange to read, "would return the dead ball" - arguing by Edit Summary that "An incomplete pass does not technically advance the ball" and that his text is "technically correct and not confusing." All true on its face; but this is not a discussion of the effect of an incomplete pass; it is a comparison between the yardage lost by the hypothetical sack and the restoration of the spot by contriving an incomplete pass. The bottom line: the rule exists to deny the quarterback a sham tactic by which to advance the ball. Anyone else care to weigh in? Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment of the issue, as far as it has been discussed. I would add that, on the surface, I believe the two edits are equal. That is, I don't think that one is effectively more clear than the other if you don't think too much about it. And if that were all I had to say about it, then I would contend that the more technically correct edit would be the one to go with.

But there's actually some ambiguity to the "advance" statement. With an incomplete pass, where is the ball considered down? Where the QB threw it, or where it landed? Technically, the ball is down at the spot where it hits the ground or an object out of play. What if that spot is beyond the line of scrimmage? That actually happens quite often, the QB tries to throw the ball away but doesn't make it past the sticks, or it lands nowhere near a receiver (maybe even in the stands out of the end zone). Then, to say that the ball is advanced becomes quite confusing.

However, saying that the ball is "returned" to the line of scrimmage has no ambiguity and is not the least bit confusing. It's very clear what the intentional grounding penalty results in: the ball stays where the penalty is, rather than being placed at the line of scrimmage from an incomplete pass. Still, perhaps a new edit might solve the problem? Replace the third sentence with:

"This rule prevents the quarterback from avoiding a sack by intentionally throwing an incomplete pass (which would stop the clock and return the ball to the line of scrimmage, avoiding any loss of yardage); instead, the penalty of intentional grounding effectively continues play as if the defense had succeeded in sacking the quarterback."

I think that more clearly states the effect of the penalty, than any of our previous edits. --Sm5574 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; that looks good and does clearly state the reason for the intentional grounding rule. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion by officials

Begun at User talk:Sm5574

You deleted a sentence with Edit Summary: "Refs can potentially confer about almost any penalty. There's no reason to specify it here." But the point is that the many "components" of this foul do frequently prompt a conference of the officials to discuss if all were present, which is not the case in most fouls, where an official reports to the referee and that is all. Please reconsider. Spike-from-NH (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Spike-from-NH my point is that this is not unique (or even unusual) to intentional grounding. It's part of officiating in general. Refs do the same thing regarding other penalties, and regarding incomplete passes or whether a player was down. To me, the issue is that IG happens when the criteria is met, not how the refs determine whether a penalty's criteria is met.

If you want to bring it up on the article's talk page, I'll be happy to discuss it there. Sm5574 (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Not unique, but I do believe it is "unusual to intentional grounding" due to the multiple components of the foul. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Officials confer all the time. They confer to determine if the defense was drawn into an offside penalty. There was a in infamous conference in a Cowboys-Lions game several years ago where a PI flag was waved off. This past Thursday a holding call was waved off after a conference. Getting together to decide if the correct call was made is almost always an option and is simply part of officiating. It should be mentioned on the page about NFL officiating, absolutely, but not on every page about every penalty simply because it might happen. Since there is no requirement that they have a discussion, I can't see any reason that it belongs in this article. Sm5574 (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)