The Fake Spike

[cowboys5xsbs]

Fake spikes are fine but the intentional grounding aspect is actually pretty interesting.

 

[NEhomer]

I voted to ban it because spiking it is intentional grounding.

If you're going to allow intentional grounding, it should have to be, in effect, declared by making the grounding motion that QBs do.

 

[Calm]

It's not a penalty because it's not Intentional Grounding:

2015 NFL Rulebook | NFL Football Operations

(Emphasis mine)

SECTION 2 - INTENTIONAL GROUNDING
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. A realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that lands in the direction and the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver.

QB is not facing imminent loss of yardage in a clock stoppage situation, therefore no Intentional Grounding.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Imho, the last thing the NFL needs is more rules that take the excitement and fun out of the game. Let these guys play and a little gimmick now and then keeps everyone on their toes. If the defense isn't prepared that's on them and their coaching staff.

 

[Money]

It's not a penalty because it's not Intentional Grounding:

2015 NFL Rulebook | NFL Football Operations

(Emphasis mine)



QB is not facing imminent loss of yardage in a clock stoppage situation, therefore no Intentional Grounding.

Forget about how the rule is worded. They worded the rule that way on purpose. We are talking about the theory behind it. Think about the actual action of spiking the football. Is the football being grounded? Yes. Is it being grounded intentionally? It doesn't get any more intentional. I think it's fine that they allow this, but I don't think it should be allowed to be used as a tool to deceive defenses.

 

[Calm]

Forget about how the rule is worded. They worded the rule that way on purpose. We are talking about the theory behind it. Think about the actual action of spiking the football. Is the football being grounded? Yes. Is it being grounded intentionally? It doesn't get any more intentional. I think it's fine that they allow this, but I don't think it should be allowed to be used as a tool to deceive defenses.

It's no different than allowing it when the QB is out of the pocket. Isn't that still "intentional grounding" by your definition? Yes, but it is not a penalty because it's allowed per the rules. The same goes with the spike play.

 

[Money]

It's no different than allowing it when the QB is out of the pocket. Isn't that still "intentional grounding" by your definition? Yes, but it is not a penalty because it's allowed per the rules. The same goes with the spike play.

Let me ask you something. If a defensive player jumps into the backfield and drills a QB before the motion/spike is complete, do you think a flag gets thrown or not?

 

[shopson67]

Isn't spiking the ball the absolute most intentional grounding you can have??? I don't think it's fair to give the offense the benefit of being able to spike the ball to save time and then also give the offense the opportunity to use that advantage to deceive the defense.

Just my two cents...

It's not included as intentional grounding because the QB is not under duress. If you're going to count that, then you have to include all the passes intentionally thrown at a RB's feet, etc.

 

[shopson67]

Let me ask you something. If a defensive player jumps into the backfield and drills a QB before the motion/spike is complete, do you think a flag gets thrown or not?

It's virtually impossible. The snap is immediately followed by the downward motion of the spike, usually without any draw back of the arm. Plus, the only real way to do so would be by jumping the line, which would likely be flagged for going high at the QB with likely contact with the head.

 

[shopson67]

Fake spike needs to stay. Deception is a huge part of the game.

 

[NEhomer]

Forget about how the rule is worded. They worded the rule that way on purpose. We are talking about the theory behind it. Think about the actual action of spiking the football. Is the football being grounded? Yes. Is it being grounded intentionally? It doesn't get any more intentional. I think it's fine that they allow this, but I don't think it should be allowed to be used as a tool to deceive defenses.

I agree with Money.

Call it what you want but it's using a down to intentionally throw the ball into the ground.

 

[shopson67]

I agree with Money.

Call it what you want but it's using a down to intentionally throw the ball into the ground.

...which the league deems a fair trade-off, one down for clock stoppage.

 

[Money]

...which the league deems a fair trade-off, one down for clock stoppage.

Right...when stopping the clock is the intent. Not when the intent is to use this exception to deceive the defense.

 

[Money]

Fake spike needs to stay. Deception is a huge part of the game.

Should they allow punt returners to return the punt even after calling for a fair catch? Talk about deception...

 

[Calm]

I agree with Money.

Call it what you want but it's using a down to intentionally throw the ball into the ground.

And intentionally throwing the ball into the ground is only a foul when it is done to avoid a loss of yardage.

This isn't a novel idea. There are MANY rules that require there to be a certain set of conditions in order for a foul to be called.

 

[Money]

And intentionally throwing the ball into the ground is only a foul when it is done to avoid a loss of yardage.

This isn't a novel idea. There are MANY rules that require there to be a certain set of conditions in order for a foul to be called.

They worded that rule with the act of spiking the ball specifically in mind...and you are using that rule to justify why spiking the ball is not intentionally grounding the ball???

Spiking the ball is an allowance made to the offense. There's nothing wrong with that in of itself. It's when that allowance is then used to deceive the defense that I call BS on.

 

[shopson67]

Should they allow punt returners to return the punt even after calling for a fair catch? Talk about deception...

LOL. That's completely different. The QB doesn't officially signal that he's going to spike the ball, it just appears like he would. This is no different than a pump fake, flea-flicker, or pulling the ball back from the RB on a read option.

 

[SonnyCID]

Making a fake spike illegal? You may as well also make it illegal to do fake punts, play action, and any other form of deception while you're at it.

I say they ban juke moves. It's not fair to fake one way and run another. What if the defender gets caught off guard?

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Fake spike needs to stay. Deception is a huge part of the game.

Like that sweet little one St Louise did last year to Seattle on the punt where Bailey took it to the endzone from the other side of the field where the action appeared to be.....

 

[shopson67]

Like that sweet little one St Louise did last year to Seattle on the punt where Bailey took it to the endzone from the other side of the field where the action appeared to be.....

I still don't understand how the whole Seattle team bought into that; the coverage team is running behind the flight of the ball.