I'm Confused

[Ellard80]

They are inconsistent with grounding nowadays and it irritates the shit out of me.

Another one they routinely fuck up are encroachment calls, when they blow the play dead instead of allowing the offense to take a shot.

yeah i agree

I feel like this example could have went either way - and either side would have been pissed.

 

[dieterbrock]

They are inconsistent with grounding nowadays and it irritates the shit out of me.

Another one they routinely fuck up are encroachment calls, when they blow the play dead instead of allowing the offense to take a shot.

Boom, there it is
It's the inconsistency of it that is so maddening. I mean we saw it called on a qb who tripped over a ref, and then they dont call the play on Darnold

 

[RamFan503]

Also interesting that they never showed the replay of the phantom penalty on us that play. Gotta love home cooking.

Yeah. I noticed that a few times. But then again, apparently the home team controls replay except for challenges so...

I'm not sure if that's actually true, I just heard it during a game once. It seems to hold true. I noticed it during the Bills game as well.

 

[RamFan503]

Seems like it would be somewhat difficult for the official to know where exactly the tackles started off if there is much displacement.

Except that they know exactly where the ball was placed pre-snap and they almost always discuss it before throwing that particular flag. It would have been a pretty easy determination.

 

[RamFan503]

But either way, the holding would be the first penalty and the intentional grounding wouldn’t matter.

You may be correct on that. I'm not really sure what the rule is on that count. It's not really spelled out it seems.

 

[majrleaged]

If a defensive back hinders the receiver from running his route, then that can be determined as the reason the quarterback could not find an open target and the pass rush got there.

If that’s not the case then DBs should hold on every play until the pass rush forces the QB to throw the ball away.

And they do quite frequently.

 

[Ellard80]

You may be correct on that. I'm not really sure what the rule is on that count. It's not really spelled out it seems.

Been watching the NFL like 35 years and can't remember them ever announcing "There is no intentional grounding because the receiver was held ect."

Both flags would get thrown because the people calling it are in totally different places.

 

[FaulkSF]

Except that they know exactly where the ball was placed pre-snap and they almost always discuss it before throwing that particular flag. It would have been a pretty easy determination.

The referee should be throwing the intentional grounding flag. His only responsibility is the QB and site line past them (OL sometimes RB). The referee should never ever be following the pass, QB is #1 priority.

It should be on the down judge or back judge to determine if a ball could be reasonably caught and to report that information into the referee. That’s why we saw the discussion.

If it were me officiating, I report it as no realistic chance of completion, the ball was thrown into the stands. It becomes the referee’s call as to whether the QB was outside the tackle.

We generally give three to four big steps at the hs level. That was not met, referee should have banged them with the flag.

 

[RamFan503]

Been watching the NFL like 35 years and can't remember them ever announcing "There is no intentional grounding because the receiver was held ect."

Both flags would get thrown because the people calling it are in totally different places.

I agree. I just don't know. It spells out if a QB has his passing motion affected but says nothing about holding or pass interference. And if they are not going to allow for the ref getting in the way as preventing IG from being called, I can't see how they don't call it in this case.

I think it once again boils down to consistency.

Most coaches will tell you that if the calls are consistent - no problem. It's when they seem to be very inconsistent that it is a bad look.

That being said, I remember Stafford getting hit while throwing and it still got called.

 

[Steve808]

really?

Looks pretty clear that he was out of the pocket to me.

yeah just watched it again... pretty clear honestly.

Look at the hash marks - he clears both of them.

I believe on that play however, the ball was marked on the right hash mark. So the "pocket" should have been a few yards on the right side of that hash mark.

 

[Tano]

really?

Looks pretty clear that he was out of the pocket to me.

yeah just watched it again... pretty clear honestly.

Look at the hash marks - he clears both of them.

This clearly shows he is not beyond the right tackle.

This should have been called intentional grounding to offset Johnson's hold

 

[Ellard80]

View attachment 63678

View attachment 63679

This clearly shows he is not beyond the right tackle.

This should have been called intentional grounding to offset Johnson's hold

that's a great angle to see it clearly.

Yeah it should have been I agree now with that picture - but i can be honest in saying its close enough that i could see how the official might have been unsure or missed it.

I also wonder Is it where the ball is released or where the QB is standing? Though again from that angle it could have cerainly been called.

 

[Tano]

As to the holding penalty on Johnson - umm what????

He was in the middle of the field and wasn't within 5 yards of a receiver.

And I looked at the other CBs and ummm

Maybe Lake - but it was really weak or maybe Witherspoon but that was even weaker.

That was a bullshit call if I have ever seen one.

Wish I knew how to create a GIF of the ALL 22 for you to look at.

 

[Tano]

that's a great angle to see it clearly.

Yeah it should have been I agree now with that picture - but i can be honest in saying its close enough that i could see how the official might have been unsure or missed it.

I also wonder Is it where the ball is released or where the QB is standing? Though again from that angle it could have cerainly been called.

That's a good question. But even if is based on where the ball is released, I think it is still intentional grounding, but definitely a lot closer.

However, I would like to know who actually held in the secondary if it wasn't Johnson as called by the official. Because Johnson wasn't even remotely close to anyone to have held anyone thru the entire play. Closest he was to a player was 5 yards and in position to jump in front of a couple players if Darnold had thrown to them.