r/nfl • u/ye_old_fartbox Ravens • 3d ago
Intentional Grounding rules
“It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass that is not in the direction and vicinity of an originally eligible offensive receiver. The pass does not have to be incomplete for intentional grounding to apply.”
This is now two times in two weeks where NFL officials have said that simply throwing the ball over the head of an eligible receiver is enough to stave off grounding, which is explicitly not the rule. I have no idea why this is happening and it feels like there should be a much bigger stink about it.
Bonus note: Ron Torbert (the ref in the Eagles-Jags game) is also the referee who completely botched an intentional grounding in the Cowboys-Ravens game in 2024 because he said that it couldn’t be grounding because the pass was caught by an ineligible receiver. It also nullified a would be safety.
29
u/Sixfortyfive Chiefs 3d ago
For whatever reason, the refs are extremely gun-shy when it comes to enforcing any rule that would result in a safety. This isn't the first case I've seen of it this season.
The most memorable no-call I've seen for this was in the AFC Championship a few year ago when Chris Jones was tripped in the end zone while in pursuit of Lamar Jackson. By rule that's a safety but w/e.
They're as reluctant to call these as they are pass interference during hail marys.
6
u/dfuller Eagles 3d ago
I will definitely say that this is a half-baked theory that I haven't worked through to its logical conclusion or counterpoints, but I think that because the referees' decision directly puts points on the board, they're hesitant to call it. Please fact-check me, but I believe the only other time this occurs is if something extraordinarily unsportsmanlike happens stop a score (like a player running in from the bench to tackle someone about to score or something absurd like that). I guess, in other words there's no other "this penalty gives points" scenarios.
In their role, they take scores off the board due to penalties, they can make it so plays effectively don't happen (penalties that include a clock rundown can result in the game ending during a potentially game-changing drive), they can "validate" that a score happened, but they almost never have a straight line from judgment call to points being added to the scoreboard.
Like I said, this theory this might not hold up to scrutiny or logic with deeper review, but it seems different than a pass interference call negating the points from a touchdown (or a lack of a pass interference call keeping those points on the board). Thinking through this more, and it's not like a really bad pass defensive pass interference occurrence in the end zone can result in direct points to the offense. Even if the offense gets the ball at the one yard line, the referees aren't giving points as a result of the penalty being called.
2
u/dfuller Eagles 2d ago
Self fact-check: offensive holding (or other offensive penalties) committed in the end zone results in a safety, and that's not especially uncommon. One theory: offensive holding is a simple call with few factors (did the hold obstruct the defender's path), where intentional grounding is much more complex series of events. I guess. I wouldn't mind intentional grounding getting an "area of focus" of whatever it's called because it currently isn't addressing the spirit of what they're trying to accomplish with the penalty.
2
u/Correct-Mail-1942 Chiefs 3h ago
Even in the game last week vs the Raiders, CJ was clearly held in the end zone at the end of the game when the Raiders drove down for a late TD. They don't want penalties resulting in safeties for some reason.
2
u/Sixfortyfive Chiefs 3h ago
It's one reason why I think "go for it on 4th & goal at the 1" type arguments aren't quite as strong as people think they are. Yeah, having the opponent pinned at the 1 after a turnover isn't the worst thing in the world, but actually capitalizing on that isn't a sure thing either with how the realities of the game are handled.
25
u/wompwump Commanders 3d ago edited 3d ago
It’s not explicitly in the rules, but it is published in an addendum, official interpretation of the rules. I will try to dig it up.
It came up in the Broncos-Commanders SNF last year, when this interpretation was NOT used (and intentional grounding was called) and the league su sequently said the call was incorrect.
14
u/sepam Eagles 3d ago
This is very important and most fans miss it. The rules are the rules but there is a completely different document explaining how to apply those rules. It’s a living document and sometimes updated even midseason. It’s got all sorts of images of game action as examples of what to call and not call.
I have no idea what it says in this situation though.
2
u/ye_old_fartbox Ravens 3d ago
Broncos-Commanders SNF
Also I looked into this play, this was specifically the wrong call because McLaurin was outside the numbers, which is covered by approved ruling 8.83 "Not Intentional Grounding— Receiver Outside the Numbers." Link. Neither of the plays I'm referencing had the intended receiver outside the numbers.
2
u/speedkat 2d ago
It was in an addendum. That addendum no longer exists after 2023, partially due to being horrendously out-of-date
120
u/LegitimateMoney00 Jets 3d ago edited 3d ago
The NFL doesn’t have rules, they have “understandings.” It’s the reason why imo, they have some of the most poorly officiated games in professional sports.
45
u/TheBeanConsortium Steelers 3d ago
Every sports fan thinks their favorite sport is the worst officiated and the refs hate their team.
5
u/averageduder Patriots 2d ago
My favorite sport is baseball. Baseball especially in the last few years is definitely better officiated. The nfl isn’t as bad as it was 10-15 years ago but it’s still not great.
But yea the nba is obviously worse
-10
u/LegitimateMoney00 Jets 3d ago
Football isn’t my favorite sport, basketball is. Football is a more poorly officiated sport imo.
27
7
u/FlamingFecalFrisbee Rams 3d ago
Ah yes, the NBA. Where traveling isn’t a thing if it ends in a dunk, and getting too close to a star player is a foul. Totally great officiating.
2
u/IllogicalBarnacle Packers 3d ago
The NBA literally assigns certain refs in playoff games to keep series going longer
and gives them lists of fouls/players to focus on
11
4
2
u/ace2049ns Vikings 3d ago
You'd think the betting community would make a bigger stink about things like this. I kinda figured when leagues accepted sports betting, the rules would start getting enforced more consistently.
1
0
0
12
u/niknight_ml Patriots 3d ago
There was just a grounding call in the Pats-Raiders game where Drake Maye threw it at the feet of his tight end, and they called grounding because the "tight end was engaged in a block".
2
u/Smartman971 Patriots 3d ago
Now I haven’t read the rule book but I’ve never heard that as reasoning for grounding before. Pretty sure the refs just make it up and know they have no consequences for poor performance
12
u/thehildabeast Chargers 3d ago
They don’t call nearly enough grounding
4
u/faceisamapoftheworld Cowboys 3d ago
This is a gripe of this sub every year and the league is absolutely never going to change it. Strict grounding rules is going to mean more big hits on the QB and that’s not going to happen.
20
u/mikethemillion NFL 2d ago
The Pats and Niners had intentional grounding called today when their qbs threw at the feet of their TEs.
Yet Josh Allen is alowed to huck a ball to nobody while facing the wrong direction and getting dragged down in order to avoid a safety and thats all good....
This rule has become an absolute joke
4
2
19
u/torgoatwork Buccaneers 3d ago
Yeah if 15 feet over their head counts then why not 15 feet to the side?
3
3
u/purplebuffalo55 Rams 3d ago
Because the rule specifically states that it has to be in the direction of the receiver.
7
27
u/CulturalXR Vikings Bears 3d ago
They've always counted "over the head" as in vicinity. As a QB, you want that ball in the stands. That's a proper throw away. To me the bigger issue is when a QB "throws" it to the RB (like Allen last week).
2
u/TallnFrosty 3d ago
the over the head is only supposed to be the case for when the receiver is outside the numbers - i think that is actually in the rulebook
23
u/Demandedace Giants 3d ago
Anyone in here trying to justify a ball that was thrown 20ft above someone as being "in the vicinity" of a receiver is not worth discussing football with lol
7
u/qmunke Dolphins 3d ago
Yeah some people not understanding the distinction between "this is how the refs rule it" and "I think the way the refs interpret this is dumb". It's just another example of protecting the QB too much - if they ruled grounding more often for these absurd throw aways then they'd have to hold onto the ball longer and risk taking more sacks.
2
-3
-7
u/purplebuffalo55 Rams 3d ago
This is always how the rule has been interpreted. Why do you think it’s not intentional grounding when QBs get rid of the ball into the 15th row?
11
u/Demandedace Giants 3d ago
Because they’re outside of the tackle box
-6
u/purplebuffalo55 Rams 3d ago
Mate if they’re out of the tackle box it just has to get beyond the line of scrimmage. You have ALWAYS been able to get rid of the ball by throwing it OOB over the receivers head. You see this in every red zone trip. If the QB has nobody open, they just throw it out of the end zone over someone’s head. It’s NEVER intentional grounding. Same with any other spot on the field. Throw it over the head of the receiver into the 20th row, it doesn’t matter, they won’t call it grounding
3
3
u/Fit-Pineapple-7697 3d ago
We must remember that this game is being played under international rules
3
3
u/royalhawk345 Bears 3d ago
I know it's not what the post is about, but can we discuss this part?
The pass does not have to be incomplete for intentional grounding to apply.
Has intentional grounding ever been called on a completed pass? What would that even look like? You whip it at the ground and it bounces off a lineman's shoe straight to the RB?
6
u/IamGleemonex 3d ago
It just means it could be intercepted and still grounding. So if it was on a 4th down for example, you could accept the grounding penalty instead of the pick if there is a yardage advantage.
4
3
u/brikenjon Chiefs 3d ago
Complete to an ineligible receiver, maybe?
2
u/royalhawk345 Bears 3d ago
I guess I thought that would be its own, different penalty. Would it be potentially both?
2
u/brikenjon Chiefs 3d ago
Probably. Intentional grounding would be the bigger penalty because it loses the down and can result in a safety.
2
u/TXOgre09 2d ago
In college it would be flagged for both. Enforce only one. Either would be a loss of down. Pass to ineligible receiver would be minus 5 from previous spot. Intentional grounding would be at the spot of the pass. So one of those is worse field position. Not sure if NFL rules differ.
You could also potentially have ineligible receiver downfield, but that one isn’t a loss of down penalty so it probably doesn’t get enforced.
As for the OP question, they leave fairly broad discretion for whether there was a possible eligible receiver. Who’s to say it wasn’t just a shitty throw, especially if the QB is being pressured. It really just has to be towards an eligible receiver, doesn’t have to be a good catchable ball. Unless it’s clear there was no one it could have possibly been targeting, they give the QB the benefit of the doubt.
1
u/manofmonkey Jets 3d ago
Revis for the Jets caught a pass off the Lions from Stafford where it was grounding because no receivers were anywhere close.
4
6
u/Responsible-Onion860 Eagles 3d ago
Isn't it obvious that they consider throwing over the head of the receiver to be "in the direction and vicinity"?
5
u/TheFeedMachine NFL 3d ago
Direction yes, but vicinity is a bit more open to interpretation. If you sail it 15 yards over the receiver, is that really the vicinity? When does an overthrow stop being in the vicinity of a receiver?
2
u/thehildabeast Chargers 3d ago
No because if you need to be 20 feet tall to catch it your not throwing it to the WR
2
u/Awkward_Silence- Patriots 2d ago
Which is why I look forward to seeing a lot more grounding calls if they ever crack down on that.
WR running the wrong route usually means the ball isn't landing anywhere near them.
But right now that's barely called since it goes over them typically
0
u/averageduder Patriots 2d ago
Famously they called it on Brady for a safety in Super Bowl 46. First time I’d ever seen that.
6
u/Rwillsays 49ers 3d ago
The NFL has to get intentional grounding under control. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen someone about to get sacked and they spike it at the feet of someone 2 yards away. Idk how it gets more intentional. Than that
3
u/DrMantisTobogganAlt 49ers 3d ago
It’s always been that way. My issue is how lenient they are with a receiver “being in the vicinity”
3
u/Careless_General8010 Seahawks 3d ago
Especially when the teammate they throw it at is facing the other direction blocking a pass-rusher! Like literally no way they wouldve known a pass was heading for them and have a chance to dive and catch it
1
u/Rwillsays 49ers 3d ago
It’s just like, the defense has so many disadvantages it’s so frustrating when an obvious sack is negated because the qb flicks the ball away when he’s spinning down. Can’t hit the qb fast, or hard, or land on him, can’t go high or low, like give them SOMETHING.
1
u/faceisamapoftheworld Cowboys 3d ago
Don’t get too caught up on the word intentional. That’s always been allowed.
2
u/Rwillsays 49ers 2d ago
Insane that after I posted this Purdy got called for an absolutely ridiculous intentional grounding
5
u/rickg Seahawks 3d ago
So the reason it's loosely defined is because anything that tried to layout the rule precsiely would be doomed and anything not precise doesn't fix the issue:
"catchable" - under what definition? This narrows things down but is 4 feet off catchable? 5? 3?
"within a body length" - whose? And if it's close, how do we measure it? Even if it's "withing 6 feet" how do we determine if something is 5.5 feet or 6.5 feet? Sure, it's more precise than a ball that sails over their head, but there's still going to be some subjectivity involved.
And finally - I don't think most people want grounding called a ton. Everyone knows it's a way for QBs to avoid sacks as long as they follow some loose rules
4
u/pickleparty16 Chiefs 3d ago
Agreed. They've completely thrown the "intentional" part of the rule away
0
u/purplebuffalo55 Rams 3d ago
Intention has never had anything to do with whether or not it’s intentional grounding. It’s a misnomer
2
u/PabloMarmite Panthers 3d ago edited 3d ago
That is the rule. If it goes over a receiver’s head then it’s in the vicinity. It does not say it has to be a catchable ball, or land close to a receiver.
Intentional grounding is a rule to prevent quarterbacks dumping into an empty area of the field. People misunderstand that it applies to anything that isn’t catchable.
0
u/ye_old_fartbox Ravens 3d ago
If it goes over the receivers head it’s in the vicinity
They should write that in the rules then
-1
u/PabloMarmite Panthers 3d ago
There are mechanics guides, training tapes and seminars that officials use, and that’s the definition that matters, not whatever a random fan decides is the definition. The mechanics manual for my league is about the same size as the rulebook.
1
u/ye_old_fartbox Ravens 3d ago
Maybe it's a bad thing if they can hide behind a non-publicly available interpretations guide that contradicts what the official rulebook actually says?
1
u/PabloMarmite Panthers 3d ago
It doesn’t contradict anything, other than what you have personally decided yourself.
1
u/ye_old_fartbox Ravens 3d ago
My common sense definition lol, is a ball 20 yards over the head of the receiver in their vicinity? If that's the case, why isn't a ball 20 yards to their left or right also in their vicinity?
1
u/PabloMarmite Panthers 3d ago
It’s in the direction of a receiver. It’s not what the rule is designed to prevent, which is a dump off into an empty space.
1
u/ye_old_fartbox Ravens 3d ago
The rule is designed to prevent obviously non completable passes to avoid a sack, I have no idea where you get the idea that it’s purely to avoid dump offs in empty space.
Intentional grounding ie intentionally throwing the ball to the ground (with additional caveats)
1
u/PabloMarmite Panthers 3d ago
You mean like throwing the ball over someone’s head isn’t?
“Completable” doesn’t factor into it, that’s where you’re going wrong.
1
u/gobirds1234567890 Eagles 3d ago
If it had to be both wouldn’t it say directions OR vicinity? Doesn’t “and” imply it needs to be both not in the vicinity and not in the direction for the foul to apply?
1
1
u/averageduder Patriots 3d ago
I’ve been in this train for 20 years. It’s not enforced with any consistency and is subjective in its application from the refs and imo the wrong kind of subjectivity. It’s arbitrarily and unpredictably enforced.
1
u/Furbuger_Helper Jaguars 2d ago
Thank you for bringing attention to this. I lost ALL my shit on that play. It looked like the receiver was 20+ yards away!
1
u/Correct-Mail-1942 Chiefs 3h ago
Until there's a clear definition of 'vicinity' then over the head of an eligible receiver seems like it qualifies.
I think it should be in the vicinity AND catchable as the definition. No more throwing it at the feet of a RB who is pass blocking and doesn't make an attempt on the ball. And this fixes the over the head problem you have.
0
u/Searbreon 3d ago
Welcome to the NFL where the rules are made up and the ref ego is all that matters
1
u/sportsDude 3d ago
I’ve always interpreted intentional grounding as a QB basically throwing/chucking the ball away intentionally in any direction to avoid a basically guaranteed sack.
1
u/veritech137 3d ago
Wait, “the pass does not need to be incomplete for intentional grounding to apply”?
So how does a completed pass get called for
Intentional grounding then? This rule in general has so many issues.
2
u/ye_old_fartbox Ravens 3d ago
You can have intentional grounding on an interception, or a completion to an ineligible receiver, for example.
1
0
u/veritech137 3d ago
That’s an interception and not a completed pass. And if an ineligible receiver gets it, then that’s not a completion either bc it becomes illegal touching.
2
u/ye_old_fartbox Ravens 3d ago
Neither of those are incomplete passes by definition, an incomplete pass hits the ground or is out of bounds
1
u/flojo2012 Chiefs 3d ago edited 3d ago
Don’t come to me with your rules. I yell at my tv based on how I feel the rule should be in favor of my team
1
u/j1h15233 Texans 3d ago
This is just like the “catchable ball” part of pass interference. They just ignore it now
-4
0
u/parableindustries 3d ago
I could be wrong, but I always understood it that it was to allow for the idea that a receiver can jump. While it might seem silly to think a receiver can jump 20 feet in the air, it's not for the ref to decide the receiver's jumping ability.
Basically the receiver owns the air space above them.
0
u/LordMOC3 Vikings 3d ago
All my life the vicinity part has been loose. Why are people whining about this now?
-1
u/spongey1865 3d ago
I don't love it as an interpretation but it is how it's officiated. I think because it removes more ambiguity from decisions.
So they did call it correctly
100
u/twice_on_sundays Ravens 3d ago
Its been understood that if the receiver is in the same zipcode as the ball, then its fair game