Panthers seek clarification on intentional grounding rule

[Mick063]

Panthers, ahead of Russell Wilson’s visit, seek clarification on intentional grounding rule

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports ... rylink=cpy

 

[Erebus]

That is misleading. You are suggesting they sought clarification because of Russell Wilson. The article says they sought clarification after their week 16 loss to the Falcons.

 

[formido]

Panthers, ahead of Russell Wilson’s visit, seek clarification on intentional grounding rule

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports ... rylink=cpy

Broadcasters should brush up on intentional grounding, too. How many times this season do I have to listen to the booth beg for an intentional grounding call because "the ball didn't reach the line of scrimmage" or "he wasn't out of the pocket" when there was receiver 5 yards from the ball!

The old provisions didn't go away. Refs aren't trying to judge a QBs intent...at least they better not be.

 

[Sign37now]

:waah:

 

[hawkfan68]

The last thing they should be concerned about is intentional grounding.

 

[hawknation2015]

I smell Panther fear.

 

[Seanhawk]

I think the rule should be modified so as soon as the QB breaks the pocket, he is considered out of the pocket the entire play. If the QB ends up back within the tackle box, after scrambling around, the normal rules for being outside the pocket would apply.

I guess it might only affect our QB, but still.

 

[chris98251]

The intentional grounding they should be worried about is how much Ground Marshawn Lynch intentionally eats up at their expense.

 

[bjornanderson21]

Panthers, ahead of Russell Wilson’s visit, seek clarification on intentional grounding rule

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports ... rylink=cpy

Broadcasters should brush up on intentional grounding, too. How many times this season do I have to listen to the booth beg for an intentional grounding call because "the ball didn't reach the line of scrimmage" or "he wasn't out of the pocket" when there was receiver 5 yards from the ball!

The old provisions didn't go away. Refs aren't trying to judge a QBs intent...at least they better not be.

Ive been confused by that as well. Many times i have seen a pass go close to a Seahawk and have wondered why the announcers even mention grounding. If the pass is close to a Hawk then it is just a pass, or at least thats how i've always understood it.

 

[bjornanderson21]

I think the rule should be modified so as soon as the QB breaks the pocket, he is considered out of the pocket the entire play. If the QB ends up back within the tackle box, after scrambling around, the normal rules for being outside the pocket would apply.

I guess it might only affect our QB, but still.

I agree, and i think that makes sense.

When the rule was created, QBs were more or less pocket statues. I can understand having a rule that penalizes the offense for quickly throwing it away against an aggressive pass rush.

But when the QB scambles out of the pocket like Russ does it is almost always a normal part of his play and it is not a cheap throwaway like with pocket statues.

With more and more QBs being mobile i can actually see this rule being revisited by the rules committee in the next few years. It could also be viewed as a safety enhancement change (qb can throw it away without getting clobbered trying to leave the pocket a SECOND or third time.)

 

[Palmegranite]

I don't know why a clarification or a revision of the rule is needed. That's why the game is refereed. If in the opinion of a referee, in an attempt to avoid a sack, the QB threw the ball to an area of the field(or out of bounds) with no reasonable chance of an eligible receiver catching the ball, the penalty should be called.

 

[hawkfan68]

The intentional grounding rule, like many of the rules, is very subjective. It rule itself isn't called by the book many times and when called it's very inconsistent. What looks like "intentional grounding for one team or player isn't intentional grounding for another". There's a major difference when a Russell Wilson or Cam Newton get called for intentional grounding while Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning do the same thing and don't get called for it. It's as subjective a call as the pass interference penalty. But the rules in themselves aren't bad. It's the folks calling them that are. They are inconsistent with their calls and this is a league wide problem that doesn't look to be solved anytime soon.

 

[Palmegranite]

Just in the first quarter of the NE/KC game A. Smith has already intentionally grounded the ball on 2 plays. No call.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Just in the first quarter of the NE/KC game A. Smith has already intentionally grounded the ball on 2 plays. No call.

That's overkill IMO. This is a penalty I like to see called almost never.

 

[Palmegranite]

OK, but if the ref doesn' call it, any QB about to be sacked for 10 or 20 yard loss can just toss it into the stands like Alex Smith and it's back to the line of scrimmage. Hey, there he did it again just now, tossed it into the stands. And again no call.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

OK, but if the ref doesn' call it, any QB about to be sacked for 10 or 20 yard loss can just toss it into the stands like Alex Smith and it's back to the line of scrimmage. Hey, there he did it again just now, tossed it into the stands. And again no call.

If he was outside the pocket and the ball went beyond the line of scrimmage, that's within the rules.

 

[Seanhawk]

OK, but if the ref doesn' call it, any QB about to be sacked for 10 or 20 yard loss can just toss it into the stands like Alex Smith and it's back to the line of scrimmage. Hey, there he did it again just now, tossed it into the stands. And again no call.

You don't understand the rule.

 

[hawk45]

I think the rule should be modified so as soon as the QB breaks the pocket, he is considered out of the pocket the entire play. If the QB ends up back within the tackle box, after scrambling around, the normal rules for being outside the pocket would apply.

I guess it might only affect our QB, but still.

Your modification best accomplishes the objective the rule was created for in the first place so I agree.

And yes, we have the only QB in the league who would benefit from that modification