BS penalty. Int. grounding on Jameis. (2 Viewers)

[PXSaber]

i still don’t see it in the rules.

They called it intentional grounding. Which would actually have been a penalty.
BUT since when is a spike intentional grounding?

And there is NOTHING in the rules regarding to what people call „a stopped clock“. After the snap the clock starts running immediately.

The only thing could have been that there was no signal from the ref that we are allowed to snap

Nevertheless, it was NOT intentional grounding (look up the rules!), therefore the penalty doesn’t apply at all.
It’s what teams do when they spike the ball during 2 minute offense…

 

[FullMonte]

i still don’t see it in the rules.

They called it intentional grounding. Which would actually have been a penalty.
BUT since when is a spike intentional grounding?

And there is NOTHING in the rules regarding to what people call „a stopped clock“. After the snap the clock starts running immediately.

The only thing could have been that there was no signal from the ref that we are allowed to snap

Nevertheless, it was NOT intentional grounding (look up the rules!), therefore the penalty doesn’t apply at all.
It’s what teams do when they spike the ball during 2 minute offense…

Again…AR 8.90 clearly says that a QB may only spike the ball to stop a running clock. Whether you agree that it makes sense or not, the rule is clear.

 

[Yatman]

other than mahomes' ig cited in the article...

can anyone remember a qb with a stopped clock ever spiking a ball?

no, because it never happens

if the clock is stopped, there's absolutely no reason to throw away your next two downs

yesterday was a fluke mistake and penalty, full stop

 

[ilvdsnts]

other than mahomes' ig cited in the article...

can anyone remember a qb with a stopped clock ever spiking a ball?

no, because it never happens

if the clock is stopped, there's absolutely no reason to throw away your next two downs

what do you mean your next TWO downs? You are only throwing away 1 down. You spike the ball on 2nd down, 2nd down is wasted, now its 3rd. How is 3rd wasted because because you spiked in 2nd?

 

[Yatman]

what do you mean your next TWO downs? You are only throwing away 1 down. You spike the ball on 2nd down, 2nd down is wasted, now its 3rd. How is 3rd wasted because because you spiked in 2nd?

because intentional grounding incurs a loss of down, as happened to jameis (and mahomes)

 

[ilvdsnts]

because intentional grounding incurs a loss of down, as happened to jameis (and mahomes)

That just means you don’t get to replay the down like most penalties. If you hold on 2nd down, you replay 2nd down from 10 yards back. If you intentional ground on 2nd down, you lose the down and now its 3rd.

 

[Yatman]

right, my bad, should have removed "next"

 

[Belfast Saint]

Regardless of whether the penalty is appropriate or not, the punishment does not fit the crime. On a 'normal' intentional grounding the crime is to avoid a sack unfairly and the penalty - 10 yards and loss of down - reflects what you tried to gain by committing the foul.

In the scenario in question, is a 10 yard loss and loss of down commensurate with crime of trying to stop the clock when it was not possible to do so? Seems very much a procedural issue and should be a 5 yard penalty and no loss of down.

It feels like they took two separate scenarios because they both involve a QB throwing the ball away and just haven't bothered to split a single penalty up to reflect two different things.

 

[FullMonte]

Regardless of whether the penalty is appropriate or not, the punishment does not fit the crime. On a 'normal' intentional grounding the crime is to avoid a sack unfairly and the penalty - 10 yards and loss of down - reflects what you tried to gain by committing the foul.

In the scenario in question, is a 10 yard loss and loss of down commensurate with crime of trying to stop the clock when it was not possible to do so? Seems very much a procedural issue and should be a 5 yard penalty and no loss of down.

It feels like they took two separate scenarios because they both involve a QB throwing the ball away and just haven't bothered to split a single penalty up to reflect two different things.

The ruling in the book explains the rationale. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's right there.

The scenario they propose is 6 seconds remaining in the half with a stopped clock. The QB spikes the ball, which runs 1 second off the clock. Now, a field goal try should run the clock out without the other team getting the ball back with 1 second.

The interesting part is that the ruling states that the penalty is intentional ground, with a 10 yard penalty, a loss of down, and a 10 second runoff. The runoff was not included in this instance as it should have been.

 

[Belfast Saint]

The ruling in the book explains the rationale. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's right there.

The scenario they propose is 6 seconds remaining in the half with a stopped clock. The QB spikes the ball, which runs 1 second off the clock. Now, a field goal try should run the clock out without the other team getting the ball back with 1 second.

The interesting part is that the ruling states that the penalty is intentional ground, with a 10 yard penalty, a loss of down, and a 10 second runoff. The runoff was not included in this instance as it should have been.

Not disagreeing about what's in the rulebook, just stating it seems like the same penalty for two different things.

In the scenario referenced, throw the flag, put the second back on the clock, 5 yard penalty - job done.