The Fake Spike

[NEhomer]

So explain, why is it ok for a QB to throw the ball at a RB feet when a play, like a screen play, breaks down? They had no intention of completing the pass either, when they were throwing it. Should that be intentional grounding?

It would be if there was clear evidence that the ball was intentionally miss-thrown. Some bad throws might appear to be. For the sake of calling the game, the minimal criteria that the ball be thrown in the general area of an eligible receiver has been a manageable standard.

 

[Money]

Intentional grounding is intentional grounding except for when a QB intentionally throws the ball into the ground to stop the clock.

They should change the rule name to "intentional pussying out".

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Intentional grounding is intentional grounding except for when a QB intentionally throws the ball into the ground to stop the clock.

They should change the rule name to "intentional pussying out".

Just a question but what about when the QB throws at the feet of the RB when the screen pass is obviously going to be blown up by the defender and are you okay with the throw out of bounds when they are out of the pocket (a much more recent rule to protect QB's. ) I'm just curious on your thoughts, not arguing your points here.

 

[SonnyCID]

Intentional grounding is intentional grounding except for when a QB intentionally throws the ball into the ground to stop the clock.

They should change the rule name to "intentional pussying out".

Stopping the clock is pussying out? Some of you are really marginalizing the loss of a down.

If it really is an unfair advantage for offenses, why do we rarely see it? Why don't they do it more during the game in order to save their timeouts?

 

[Money]

Stopping the clock is pussying out? Some of you are really marginalizing the loss of a down.

If it really is an unfair advantage for offenses, why do we rarely see it? Why don't they do it more during the game in order to save their timeouts?

My point is intentional grounding is the wrong name for the rule when the biggest example of intentionally throwing the ball to the ground isn't included.

This conversation has gotten confused. Spiking the ball is not an unfair advantage. It's an allowance to the offense that I'm fine with. It is similar to if (and when) they do away with a pitcher in baseball having to throw 4 balls to intentionally walk someone. Let's do away with the minimal risk of throwing a wild pitch or having the batter actually swing and make contact. The spike is doing away with the minimal risk making the QB actually throw a quick pass out of bounds in the vicinity of a receiver.

In my opinion, the unfair advantage is being able to use this allowance to then deceive the defense by using the motion but not actually releasing the ball. I just think it's cheap. Another example:

It would be like a QB faking the feet first slide and then running more. Is it legal? Yes. Is it cheap? I think so. When a defensive player sees a QB go into a feet first slide, he has to immediately start making sure there isn't any contact (for fear of a roughing call). Allowing a QB to slide feet first to kill the play without contact is an allowance to QBs. It's an allowance I agree with (just like spiking the ball). I just don't like using those allowances to then deceive the other team.

I already brought up the fair catch. There is a reason players are allowed to do that. It's an allowance so players can stop the progress of the punt (by catching it) without fear of getting drilled. The league doesn't need to give that allowance. The league could just say...if you don't want to get hit, don't field the punt. Can you imagine if that player could signal for a fair catch to deceive the other team and then waive off that signal at the last second and return the punt?

I understand that these examples are not identical, but they are all allowances in my opinion.

 

[Money]

Just a question but what about when the QB throws at the feet of the RB when the screen pass is obviously going to be blown up by the defender and are you okay with the throw out of bounds when they are out of the pocket (a much more recent rule to protect QB's. ) I'm just curious on your thoughts, not arguing your points here.

Yes. The QB has to get the ball to the feet of the RB or the QB has to get out of the pocket. If the QB was required to do those things to stop the clock, then I would be fine with whatever deception the offense chose to utilize.

 

[jarntt]

Raise your hand if you didn't think it was possible for this discussion to go on for this long

 

[JMR]

Why is this still an argument? Just paste the damn rule and get on with it. If you cannot understand the rule, that's a you problem.

 

[NinerSickness]

How is this even a question?

 

[Money]

Why is this still an argument? Just paste the damn rule and get on with it. If you cannot understand the rule, that's a you problem.

The "argument" has nothing to do with the understanding of the rule. If your reading comprehension is lacking, that's a you problem.