The Fake Spike

[Hank Kingsley]

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

I laughed a long time at that play.....

 

[SonnyCID]

When did it become necessary to fix everything to make it perfectly fair?

Advantages are part of sports. Finding them and exploiting them is the tricky part.

The loss of a down is enough penalty for spiking the ball. Defenders get paid too, and if they're on their toes they should be being physical with the receiver til the whistle and maybe even jump the route if they anticipate the fake.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

When did it become necessary to fix everything to make it perfectly fair?

Advantages are part of sports. Finding them and exploiting them is the tricky part.

The loss of a down is enough penalty for spiking the ball. Defenders get paid too, and if they're on their toes they should be being physical with the receiver til the whistle and maybe even jump the route if they anticipate the fake.

How tough is it really to stay alert for the fake spike?

It's a possible. And to be aware of it is as key as not going out of bounds unless you need to to keep the clock running.

Mind you 12 men on the field seems to be frequently called and that one always amazes me too.

 

[Money]

When did it become necessary to fix everything to make it perfectly fair?

Advantages are part of sports. Finding them and exploiting them is the tricky part.

The loss of a down is enough penalty for spiking the ball. Defenders get paid too, and if they're on their toes they should be being physical with the receiver til the whistle and maybe even jump the route if they anticipate the fake.

Let's go to the root of this. When did it become necessary to give allowances to the offense? Why allow the offense to spike the ball to save a few seconds? Why not make the offense call a timeout or make the QB take the necessary steps to avoid intentionally grounding the football (without wording the rule to allow for it)?

 

[SonnyCID]

Let's go to the root of this. When did it become necessary to give allowances to the offense? Why allow the offense to spike the ball to save a few seconds? Why not make the offense call a timeout or make the QB take the necessary steps to avoid intentionally grounding the football (without wording the rule to allow for it)?

It's not as if there's no penalty. Losing a down is a penalty.

 

[SonnyCID]

How tough is it really to stay alert for the fake spike?

It's a possible. And to be aware of it is as key as not going out of bounds unless you need to to keep the clock running.

Mind you 12 men on the field seems to be frequently called and that one always amazes me too.

It's not tough. If it's a fake spike, then the routes are easily recognizable and should be relatively easy to jump, if the defense is not asleep at the wheel.

Every week we have demand to change something else. Then we wonder why the game is constantly changing from its traditional form and why refs are always so confused.

 

[Money]

It's not as if there's no penalty. Losing a down is a penalty.

Intentional grounding is a loss of down plus the greater of 10 yards or where the ball was thrown from.

 

[SonnyCID]

Intentional grounding is a loss of down plus the greater of 10 yards or where the ball was thrown from.

But by the letter of the law it's not grounding.

They obviously added it to make 2 minute drills more exciting. And I can appreciate that. If it's really such a great advantage to the offense, they would be doing it all game instead of using timeouts.

 

[Money]

Every week we have demand to change something else. Then we wonder why the game is constantly changing from its traditional form and why refs are always so confused.

I simply wonder why we don't treat it for what it is...intentionally throwing the football into the ground.

 

[wingsauce7]

I'm sure this has been brought up before but figured might as well discuss again. Pittsburgh successfully ran a fake spike yesterday against the Cowboys. To me, this is a BS play and should not be allowed. Aside from being a busch league move, it's a great way for defensive players to get killed. It's lame and I think they should do away with it. Thoughts?

I thought it was an awesome play.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

It's not tough. If it's a fake spike, then the routes are easily recognizable and should be relatively easy to jump, if the defense is not asleep at the wheel.

Every week we have demand to change something else. Then we wonder why the game is constantly changing from its traditional form and why refs are always so confused.

Yet in recent memory Dallas has been flummoxed twice by the old fakeroo. Stafford and now Ben,

I think a lot of the refs are confused because they are dottering old coots... Walt Anderson for example.

 

[TheStarOne]

The DB was not actually fooled, just beaten.

and the next time it happens
if an O lineman gets a career ending injury because a D lineman goes low.........don't cry.......

 

[jarntt]

The guy covering Brown didn't quit (although Wilcox should have been over to help) he was just a guy off the street that got beat by a good pass and a better player. Ben was throwing that ball no matter what. If it were picked off it would have ended the game. Never quit in sports or you deserve what you get. Every player should be aware that it may be a fake spike. I think most fans watching knew something was up because Pitt wasn't out of time outs and the down was more important than the clock right there (over 40 seconds left). Spiking it would have been stupid.

 

[jarntt]

The DB was not actually fooled, just beaten.

and the next time it happens
if an O lineman gets a career ending injury because a D lineman goes low.........don't cry.......

Why would a DL go low on an obvious passing down? Or are you insinuating that purposely attempting to injure another player and not trying to stop what is an important play in the game is OK?

 

[jarntt]

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.

It's not intentional grounding by rule. Just like the intentional grounding call against Romo in the Giants playoff game was BS. There is no attempt to avoid a loss of yardage on an immediate spike

 

[jarntt]

It's not intentional grounding by rule. Just like the intentional grounding call against Romo in the Giants playoff game was BS. There is no attempt to avoid a loss of yardage on an immediate spike

Or read whole thread and see this was addressed and discussed in detail...

 

[Broncos6482]

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

This is a terrible analogy. When a returner calls for a fair catch, he's off limits. The punting team is no longer allowed to hit him.

If a qb makes a motion to spike the ball, that's a signal to his own team. It has no bearing on what the defense does. They are still allowed to go all out at the snap and blow up the offensive line and even hit the qb if he tries a fake spike play.

 

[NEhomer]

It's not intentional grounding by rule. Just like the intentional grounding call against Romo in the Giants playoff game was BS. There is no attempt to avoid a loss of yardage on an immediate spike

I understand that "by rule" it's not but that's what it is.

The ball is hiked and tossed directly into the ground with no intention of a completed pass. That's grounding.

I'd personally like to see the entire thing tossed out. If you're out of time, you're out of time.

 

[Broncos6482]

I understand that "by rule" it's not but that's what it is.

The ball is hiked and tossed directly into the ground with no intention of a completed pass. That's grounding.

I'd personally like to see the entire thing tossed out. If you're out of time, you're out of time.

Intentional grounding requires that the qb face an imminent loss of yards, and since that's not the case on a spiked ball, it's just not intentional grounding.

 

[NEhomer]

Oh for fuck's sake with the semantics.