The Fake Spike

[Hank Kingsley]

I think maybe you need to get your inner ear checked gramps.

<ducks>

No, I just find it so pre-snap busy. It took a long time for me to get NFL regular season games weekly. Back in the day so to speak.... Cable TV was in it's infancy and Canadian carriers were not like today.

So while my first NFL moment was thew Ice Bowl in 67? My first football moment was Willie Fleming, Joe Kapp, Tom Brown, Angelo Mosca, circa '64'65. Then you grow up loving Grey Cups and go through Warren Moon in Edmonton, Tom Cousineau and Vince Farragamo as Allouetes, Johnny Rodgers, Tom Clements, etc.

But once I started with the NFL on a regular basis (the mid to late 70's) on local cable I didn't have time for the CFL. Not even Grey Cups.

And having Sunday Ticket is the icing on the cake. Sure you see every CFL game but there are only 4 a week. And they seem to be on weird days, or at least they were.

And now when I see it, there is so much motion I really do find it busy. I like the set start of the NFL play, no motion everywhere. Very chess like.

 

[chf]

No, I just find it so pre-snap busy. It took a long time for me to get NFL regular season games weekly. Back in the day so to speak.... Cable TV was in it's infancy and Canadian carriers were not like today.

So while my first NFL moment was thew Ice Bowl in 67? My first football moment was Willie Fleming, Joe Kapp, Tom Brown, Angelo Mosca, circa '64'65. Then you grow up loving Grey Cups and go through Warren Moon in Edmonton, Tom Cousineau and Vince Farragamo as Allouetes, Johnny Rodgers, Tom Clements, etc.

But once I started with the NFL on a regular basis (the mid to late 70's) on local cable I didn't have time for the CFL. Not even Grey Cups.

And having Sunday Ticket is the icing on the cake. Sure you see every CFL game but there are only 4 a week. And they seem to be on weird days, or at least they were.

And now when I see it, there is so much motion I really do find it busy. I like the set start of the NFL play, no motion everywhere. Very chess like.

Meh, CFL is speed chess. No less strategy, just faster.

But no worries, nobody has to like either. It's a big world, and there's lots of room in it for lots of football.

Ironic though, that a BUUUNCH of where the NFL game has gone, especially as a NE fan, that stuff was tried out, guess where?

And I'm the reverse. I was raised on the NFL, and came to the CFL later.

The reason the CFL is on 'weird' days? So as not to compete with the NFL.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Meh, CFL is speed chess. No less strategy, just faster.

But no worries, nobody has to like either. It's a big world, and there's lots of room in it for lots of football.

Ironic though, that a BUUUNCH of where the NFL game has gone, especially as a NE fan, that stuff was tried out, guess where?

And I'm the reverse. I was raised on the NFL, and came to the CFL later.

The reason the CFL is on 'weird' days? So as not to compete with the NFL.

CFL is huge in backwater towns like Calgary I agree.....

 

[chf]

CFL is huge in backwater towns like Calgary I agree.....

Try harder with the trolling. What, no stampede spitting tobacco humour? Raise your game Hank.

 

[jarntt]

CFL is huge in backwater towns like Calgary I agree.....

Try harder with the trolling. What, no stampede spitting tobacco humour? Raise your game Hank.

Oh snap...Canada fight!!!

 

[Broncos6482]

Semantics again. It stops the clock.

If you're going to allow intentional grounding to stop the clock, you should require the team hurrying to the line while the QB makes the spike motion to spike it just like the fair catch.

....or do away with both like the old days.

It stops the clock because it's an incomplete pass, which always stops the clock.

And it's still not intentional grounding, no matter how many times you repeat that erroneous statement.

 

[NEhomer]

It's intentional grounding no matter how many times you repeat that erroneous statement.

It allows for a time-out after the team has used all of their time-outs.

 

[Broncos6482]

It's intentional grounding no matter how many times you repeat that erroneous statement.

It allows for a time-out after the team has used all of their time-outs.

That's so weird because for some reason it's never flagged for intentional grounding. I guess the officials just miss it every single time.

 

[Calm]

It's intentional grounding no matter how many times you repeat that erroneous statement.

It allows for a time-out after the team has used all of their time-outs.

What is it that makes throwing the ball into the ground a foul? It's not an offensive act, it's not dangerous. So why is there a foul in the rule books for "intentional grounding" and what purpose does the penalty serve?

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

The Fake Spike conversation has gone way too far

 

[NEhomer]

That's so weird because for some reason it's never flagged for intentional grounding. I guess the officials just miss it every single time.

Because intentional grounding has been allowed under the rules.

What is it that makes throwing the ball into the ground a foul? It's not an offensive act, it's not dangerous. So why is there a foul in the rule books for "intentional grounding" and what purpose does the penalty serve?

It's a mis-use of a snap, substituting it for a time out.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Try harder with the trolling. What, no stampede spitting tobacco humour? Raise your game Hank.

Don't need to raise my game, it's a fact it's huge in the back water prairie towns and not so huge in the bigger towns like Van, Tor, etc. Not trolling.

No matter, haven't watched CFL in years. And on a similar list is college football, junior hockey, basketball, baseball, golf, ....

Things that never grace my TVs.

 

[Calm]

It's a mis-use of a snap, substituting it for a time out.

Forget the spike play. The game has just started and everyone has their full compliment of time outs. What makes it illegal to throw the ball into the ground?

 

[Broncos6482]

Because intentional grounding has been allowed under the rules.



It's a mis-use of a snap, substituting it for a time out.

Intentional grounding is a penalty. If they allow it, it must not fit under the category of intentional grounding.

I've never seen a qb spike the ball to stop the clock that was facing an immediate loss of yards. That's the key and you keep choosing to ignore it.

 

[NEhomer]

The ball is snapped and tossed directly into the ground with no intention of completing a pass.

That's what you keep side-stepping.

 

[Money]

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.

You quoted a post that says he understood "by rule" and then used the rule to say spiking the ball is not intentional grounding. We are talking the theory behind the rule. Can explain how a QB intentionally throwing the ball to the ground is not intentional grounding in theory?

 

[Calm]

You quoted a post that says he understood "by rule" and then used the rule to say spiking the ball is not intentional grounding. We are talking the theory behind the rule. Can explain how a QB intentionally throwing the ball to the ground is not intentional grounding in theory?

Not really.

This is exactly why I keep asking what makes throwing the ball into the ground a penalty in the first place. But you and NE can't seem to answer that question.

 

[Broncos6482]

The ball is snapped and tossed directly into the ground with no intention of completing a pass.

That's what you keep side-stepping.

That's correct. But that's not intentional grounding. It doesn't fit the requirements.

 

[Broncos6482]

You quoted a post that says he understood "by rule" and then used the rule to say spiking the ball is not intentional grounding. We are talking the theory behind the rule. Can explain how a QB intentionally throwing the ball to the ground is not intentional grounding in theory?

The theory behind the rule is that the NFL doesn't want qb's just throwing the ball wherever they want TO AVOID A SACK. That's the entire purpose behind the rule for intentional grounding.

When a qb spikes the ball to stop the clock is he trying to avoid a sack? No, he's trying to stop the clock. That's the entire purpose of the play. Because he's not trying to avoid a sack, the NFL has decided that it's allowable because it doesn't really fit the purpose of the intentional grounding rule.

Now, if the intentional grounding rule just stated that anytime a qb throws the ball away without a chance of completion (unless he's out of the pocket) he was guilty of intentional grounding, you would have a point. But there's that phrase in there about avoiding imminent loss of yards. Tell me, why do you think that part of the rule is in there?

 

[chf]

It's intentional grounding no matter how many times you repeat that erroneous statement.

It allows for a time-out after the team has used all of their time-outs.

you're picking and choosing when you're being particular about language. It DOESN'T give a 'time-out' does it?