Three intentional grounding calls...?

[All4SU]

Shouldn't all three calls have been made? I haven't read the whole board, but what wears up with the head ref's unwillingness to call intentional grounding? The one where Sunseri threw at his own feet to avoid the sack was blatant, the last one, two other refs had to come in to convince him to drop the flag. I imagine the conversation went something like this, "you better call intentional grounding on this one or we may not make it out of here alive." It was THE call of the game, that the guy had to be talked into it.

 

[Chip]

Shouldn't all three calls have been made? I haven't read the whole board, but what wears up with the head ref's unwillingness to call intentional grounding? The one where Sunseri threw at his own feet to avoid the sack was blatant, the last one, two other refs had to come in to convince him to drop the flag. I imagine the conversation went something like this, "you better call intentional grounding on this one or we may not make it out of here alive." It was THE call of the game, that the guy had to be talked into it.

TV people were at commercial when the grounding play happened (the one that was called). So we didn't even know there was a ref discussion. TV came back for the Reddish sack and then showed the Shanahan catch and grounding play as quick replays. It was very Big 10 Network-ish.

The one where Sunseri threw at his own feet with a RB 3 yards away was definitely grounding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[JoeSU]

TV people were at commercial when the grounding play happened (the one that was called). So we didn't even know there was a ref discussion. TV came back for the Reddish sack and then showed the Shanahan catch and grounding play as quick replays. It was very Big 10 Network-ish.

The one where Sunseri threw at his own feet with a RB 3 yards away was definitely grounding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Yea, I thought that one was a textbook example of grounding that took place right in front of the referee, and I couldn't believe it wasn't called.

 

[sufandu]

I didn't think the one where the RB was 3 yards away could be called. He clearly wasn't trying to throw it so the RB could catch it, but he doesn't have to in order to avoid the call. He threw in the general direction. You see it in the NFL all the time.

 

[TheOrangeBuddha]

SUFanDu is correct. Even thought Sunseri's intention seemed clear on two of the previous "intentional" throw-aways, under the letter of the rule I believe the ref was correct for not calling a penalty. On the last one, at least per replay (TV didn't show it live), all Sunseri had to do was once again throw the ball at his RB's feet, but by throwing the ball out of bounds, with no receiver in the area and being "in the pocket" - it was a clear case of intentional grounding.

 

[Chip]

I didn't think the one where the RB was 3 yards away could be called. He clearly wasn't trying to throw it so the RB could catch it, but he doesn't have to in order to avoid the call. He threw in the general direction. You see it in the NFL all the time.

He threw it straight into the ground. I've seen that called plenty of times with an eligible receiver nearby (I.e. RB who was blocking for you). Refs have to judge intent. How anyone could judge that it was in that player's direction is beyond me. Just glad that Sunseri finally was called for one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[longtimefan]

He threw it straight into the ground. I've seen that called plenty of times within eligible receiver nearby (I.e. RB who was blocking for you). Refs have to judge intent. How anyone could judge that it was in that player's direction is beyond me. Just glad that Sunseri finally was called for one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

If one of the earlier calls had been made, the refs may have been less inclined to make that call late in the game. Calling grounding against a QB multiple times is very unusual. Plus, Sunseri may have had a false sense that he could get away with it again based upon the non-calls earlier in the game.

In any case, getting lots of pressure on the QB is always a positive, and certainly paid off on the last Pitt drive.

 

[anglerman]

Look he was intentionally grounding the football. Hewas clearly not trying to complete it to a reciever. A penalty should gave been called.

 

[sufandu]

Look he was intentionally grounding the football. Hewas clearly not trying to complete it to a reciever. A penalty should gave been called.

If it's that cut and dry, why don't guys get called when they're inside the twenty and throw it over everyone's head out of the back of the endzone to avoid being sacked? I'm not saying he wasn't grounding it. I'm saying he got it close enough to one of his guys that the refs couldn't throw the flag.

 

[kingottoiii]

I thought the first one was a BS play but could understand the call. The 2nd one the ball did not go past the LOS. So unless the college rul is different, it should have been called. The 3rd was obvious and it was a joke that it took so long to call.

Also the refs had a huge call on the Davis TD that I thought was total BS. Pitt had a trail guy who would not have likely caught Davis but he was close enough that our block should have been allowed. The ref claimed it was "after the play" but Davis was not in the endzone yet. That made us KO from our own 20 and Pitt had a shorter field in which they scored a TD.

 

[anglerman]

If it's that cut and dry, why don't guys get called when they're inside the twenty and throw it over everyone's head out of the back of the endzone to avoid being sacked? I'm not saying he wasn't grounding it. I'm saying he got it close enough to one of his guys that the refs couldn't throw the flag.

was the kid intentionally grounding or was he trying to complete a pass? If the answer is yes then he was intentionally grounding.

 

[sufandu]

was the kid intentionally grounding or was he trying to complete a pass? If the answer is yes then he was intentionally grounding.

The point is, quarterbacks throw in the direction of an eligible receiver (including running backs with their backs turned) with no intention of completing the pass all of the time so they can avoid a sack without picking up an intentional grounding penalty. If anyone claims they've never seen it before, they haven't watched football.

 

[longtimefan]

The point is, quarterbacks throw in the direction of an eligible receiver (including running backs with their backs turned) with no intention of completing the pass all of the time so they can avoid a sack without picking up an intentional grounding penalty. If anyone claims they've never seen it before, they haven't watched football.

But, you have to consider the additional factors--in or out of the pocket, past the line of scrimmage or not.

 

[NineOneSeven]

The only actual grounding was the one that was called and may have saved our season.

 

[DSellers12]

In the case of intentional grounding if there is an eligible receiver in the area regardless of all other requirements then by rule it isn't intentional grounding. The player needs to be in the area where a play can be made on the ball. Now the one with the running back in the game was up to refs discretion on whether or not that receiver was in the area. That play I could have seen going either way.

 

[sufandu]

But, you have to consider the additional factors--in or out of the pocket, past the line of scrimmage or not.

Not if the ball goes toward a receiver in the area. Past the line of scrimmage and out of the pocket only pertains to when a quarterback launches it to where noone is or out of bounds.