- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Was this ever explained why this was not called for intentional grounding?
Posted on 9/3/25 at 8:10 am to Lester Earl
Posted on 9/3/25 at 8:10 am to Lester Earl
quote:
the passer initiates his passing motion toward an eligible receiver and then is significantly affected by physical contact from a defensive player that causes the pass to land i
Key point is, “ and THEN is significantly affected”. Our D hit him BEFORE he threw the ball away.
1
Posted on 9/3/25 at 8:20 am to GumboPot
yeah - I noticed that too - pass didn't come close to crossing line of scrimmage = thought there must have been some eligible receiver just out of camera view, but didn't know whether or not that made any difference.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 8:25 am to Good Times
quote:
Key point is, “ and THEN is significantly affected”. Our D hit him BEFORE he threw the ball away.
These are judgment calls happening at a fast pace. The favor generally goes to the offensive team in these situations and grounding generally has to be blatant. It simply wasn’t in this case. It was close enough to say the throw was affected by the contact. The WR was close enough in the vicinity to determine the pass was intended for him. It really isn’t that hard, nor is it some big conspiracy. This play is called this way all the time.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 8:57 am to OceanMan
quote:
You are a waste of time.
Good idea to go ahead and just take your L.
You don't even know what book you're looking at.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 8:58 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
What exactly are you talking about? It didn't hit a defender. It didn't even come close to hitting one. The guy is being tackled, and rather than take the sack he just throws it off to the side where there is no receiver close to the area, and it doesn't touch anyone.
Are you certain you looked at the play?
Did you read the entire thread? There are two different plays being discussed.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:00 am to Lester Earl
quote:
These are judgment calls happening at a fast pace. The favor generally goes to the offensive team in these situations and grounding generally has to be blatant. It simply wasn’t in this case. It was close enough to say the throw was affected by the contact. The WR was close enough in the vicinity to determine the pass was intended for him. It really isn’t that hard, nor is it some big conspiracy. This play is called this way all the time.
Yeah but all "the refs" hate L.S.U. and are out to frick the Tigers.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:48 am to Lester Earl
quote:
the tackle affects the trajectory of the throw
There was a WR close enough, with that in mind.
It was actually a sack. Should have been reviewed because his knee was down without the ball being completely out of his throwing hand.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 6:03 pm to 62zip
Ok, you are just being an a-hole now and you KNOW it. It is INSANE to ask someone to sort through MILLIONS of clips from games looking for a particular type of play. Quit TROLLING!
How do you know WHERE #6 was unless you were at the game...were you? He was NOT in the picture so unless you were at the game, you have no idea where #6 was. You are LYING if you said he was definitely in the path of the ball.
I KNOW how far the pass would have gone because it was a baby throw. You watch enough football over the years and the motion of the arm tells you generally how far that pass would have gone. At MOST, it was have traveled about 7 yards...hence the term "baby throw".
And nnnnnoooo, you do NOT know the rule for IG if you think hitting a defender with the ball clears you of the penalty. Don't need a clip for this. Example: All the receivers run to the right...a defender comes up the middle....the QB throws the ball at the defender while still in the tackle box with no receiver down the middle. That IS IG. Hitting the defender with the ball does NOT clear a QB of IG. That is just a damn stupid comment.
BTW, you act like "a bunch of D1 officials" made a JUDGMENT call. ONE guy MISSED the call...NOT a bunch of officials. I know now why you are desperate and know your own statements are nonsense. You turn to ridiculous hyperbole. Go back to your mother's basement. Multiple posters including myself have proven you the fool and by your "defender" comment, you don't even know the IG rule.
How do you know WHERE #6 was unless you were at the game...were you? He was NOT in the picture so unless you were at the game, you have no idea where #6 was. You are LYING if you said he was definitely in the path of the ball.
I KNOW how far the pass would have gone because it was a baby throw. You watch enough football over the years and the motion of the arm tells you generally how far that pass would have gone. At MOST, it was have traveled about 7 yards...hence the term "baby throw".
And nnnnnoooo, you do NOT know the rule for IG if you think hitting a defender with the ball clears you of the penalty. Don't need a clip for this. Example: All the receivers run to the right...a defender comes up the middle....the QB throws the ball at the defender while still in the tackle box with no receiver down the middle. That IS IG. Hitting the defender with the ball does NOT clear a QB of IG. That is just a damn stupid comment.
BTW, you act like "a bunch of D1 officials" made a JUDGMENT call. ONE guy MISSED the call...NOT a bunch of officials. I know now why you are desperate and know your own statements are nonsense. You turn to ridiculous hyperbole. Go back to your mother's basement. Multiple posters including myself have proven you the fool and by your "defender" comment, you don't even know the IG rule.
This post was edited on 9/3/25 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 9/3/25 at 6:53 pm to 62zip
quote:
Did you read the entire thread? There are two different plays being discussed.
It's not my responsibility to read the entire thread, when this thread was started about one play, with an attached video showing said play, and I responded to a person talking about that play. You decided to squeeze yourself into a conversation that had nothing to do with whatever point it is you're trying to make, and assumed I was talking about that.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 8:09 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
It's not my responsibility to read the entire thread, when this thread was started about one play, with an attached video showing said play, and I responded to a person talking about that play. You decided to squeeze yourself into a conversation that had nothing to do with whatever point it is you're trying to make, and assumed I was talking about that.
I didn't squeeze myself into anything. I responded to a post in this thread about another play and then you squeezed yourself in showing your arse in your reply to me while having no idea what I was replying to.
Piss off.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:20 pm to GumboPot
He was down already before launching that pass
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:32 pm to Lester Earl
That picture was taken well after the ball was thrown.
Posted on 9/4/25 at 2:34 am to 62zip
quote:
I didn't squeeze myself into anything. I responded to a post in this thread about another play and then you squeezed yourself in showing your arse in your reply to me while having no idea what I was replying to.
Piss off.
Buddy, you might do well to go back and re-read my post that you responded to. I wasn't talking to you. Whatever conversations you were having with other people had nothing to do with me, and my comments had nothing to do with you. Period. I responded to the original poster about the play that he started this thread about. And it is that comment that you proceeded to, as I said, "squeeze yourself into" and interject with a question that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
So how is it, then, that I showed my butt to you by having "no idea" who you were replaying to, when I wasn't talking to you in the first place? I was talking to the OP, and you responded to me with something entirely different, expected me to know or care that you were having a conversation with someone else entirely over something else, and then accuse me of being ignorant to something that had nothing to do with me or my point. What about your ignorance in not knowing who I was responding to, since it was you who actively made the choice to respond to me, when I wasn't talking to you?
Who is really showing themselves here? I think It's pretty obvious it isn't me. Good day.
Posted on 9/4/25 at 5:53 am to Lester Earl
quote:
The throw & hit is simultaneous, and very clearly affects the trajectory of the throw. The spirit of the rule is built in for when QBs try and dump the ball away while wrapped up.
He didnt start to throw until wrapped up. Shouldve been grounding. He was inside the tackle box and the ball wasnt close to a receiver
Posted on 9/4/25 at 7:17 am to OceanMan
quote:No such rule.
The rule is 5 yards
Page 7 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News