Point of Emphasis: Intentional Grounding

[Bobref]

Intentional Grounding is a Point of Emphasis this season. As a guy who wore that white hat for 30+ years, I found IG to be among the most challenging calls I had to make. The rule has nuances that most fans and many coaches (and, unfortunately, some officials) do not appreciate. There are also rule differences at all levels of play. So, I thought we might benefit from an open discussion of some of the more nuanced aspects of the high school rule.

We start with the bare language of the rule, which is relatively straightforward:

“ART. 2 . . . An illegal forward pass is a foul. Illegal forward passes include: …

d. A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive ­receiver.

e. A pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time.

EXCEPTION: It is legal for a player positioned directly behind the snapper to conserve time by intentionally throwing the ball forward to the ground immediately after receiving the snap that has neither been muffed nor touched the ground.”

Based on the language of the rule, how would you rule on the following play situations?

2nd and 6 from the B 42 yd. line. QB A1 drops back to pass.

1. Under a heavy rush, he dumps the ball off to what he thought was his outlet receiver, standing all alone at the B 42. Except, it turns out it isn’t a receiver, but #78, who catches the ball and advances to the B 38, where he is tackled. 
2. Same as 1, except this time #78 doesn’t catch the ball, but muffs it, and it falls incomplete.
3. He rolls right and gets free of the rush. After surveying the field, he decides there’s no one open, and he’s under instructions to avoid running the ball because of a bad ankle, so he simply gives up the down by throwing the ball incomplete into an area unoccupied by an eligible receiver.

Chew on these for a little while, and then I’ll come back and we’ll discuss the answers. I think you’ll be surprised and, I’m betting you might find some of this a bit controversial.

[PCFan1996]

#1 Illegal touching

#2 Illegal touching

#3 Intentional grounding

[Bobref]

2 hours ago, PCFan1996 said:

#1 Illegal touching

#2 Illegal touching

#3 Intentional grounding

Perhaps. Need more answers, then we can discuss.

[miner_35]

#1 Illegal Touching

#2 Illegal Touching and Intentional Grounding: the drop conserves time and he was under pressure.

#3 could be Intentional grounding, but he is not under pressure and not just trying to conserve time or yardage. Could be interpreted differently by different crews.

[Bobref]

9 minutes ago, miner_35 said:

#3 could be Intentional grounding, but he is not under pressure and not just trying to conserve time or yardage. Could be interpreted differently by different crews

You make the call. 

[miner_35]

2 hours ago, miner_35 said:

#1 Illegal Touching

#2 Illegal Touching and Intentional Grounding: the drop conserves time and he was under pressure.

#3 could be Intentional grounding, but he is not under pressure and not just trying to conserve time or yardage. Could be interpreted differently by different crews.

 

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

You make the call. 

Personally, I would not call it Intentional grounding due to the fact he could just as easily run out of bounds, but no one is around him. This just has to be interpreted the same for both sides throughout the entire game. 

[PCFan1996]

1 hour ago, miner_35 said:

 

Personally, I would not call it Intentional grounding due to the fact he could just as easily run out of bounds, but no one is around him. This just has to be interpreted the same for both sides throughout the entire game. 

But wouldn't running out of bounds be considered losing yards?  He was told to avoid running the ball so he shouldn't be trying to get upheld, correct?

[PCFan1996]

13 minutes ago, PCFan1996 said:

But wouldn't running out of bounds be considered losing yards?  He was told to avoid running the ball so he shouldn't be trying to get upheld, correct?

*upfield 

 

Sorry about that!

Edited September 5, 2021 by PCFan1996

[miner_35]

2 hours ago, PCFan1996 said:

But wouldn't running out of bounds be considered losing yards?  He was told to avoid running the ball so he shouldn't be trying to get upheld, correct?

He could slide to the ground or take a knee or pass the ball backwards out of bounds. I agree that it could be called, especially at the end of each half, but I see no advantage gained in doing such a thing in this scenario.

[US31]

Throwing a ball away to nothing instead of taking the sack, taking a knee, or becoming a runner quite literally is .....

On 9/5/2021 at 7:17 AM, Bobref said:

e. A pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time.

Too many white hats throw this part away when making the call...."well he didn't gain an advantage".  Excuse me....2 & 10 is an advantage over 2 & 15.  I'd also argue with the premise of the question posed...."he rolls right and gets free of the rush"....but can't continue upfield or out of bounds due to his ankle??

If an offense can't play a healthy QB, or protect him as a passer...the white hat shouldn't be using a conservative view of IG to protect them for loss of ANY yards or time.  This is 100% gaining an advantage to avoid a negative yardage play.  Its not hard for a QB to throw it at the feet of a receiver or over the head of one near the sideline.  If the QB can't do either of those....congratulations to the defense for making it so.

Dumping it into pasture is gaining an advantage with time or yards.

:rant off:😀

[Bobref]

Well, we’ve got a nice discussion going, including a “rant.” 😂  I’m happy to throw a little fuel on the fire. As long as I’ve been officiating, there has been an ongoing debate about the proper interpretation of the IG rule and, specifically, where does the concept of “duress” figure in to the equation, if at all? So, I will play Devil’s Advocate.

Scenario #3: This is where the rubber meets the road, and the controversy begins. Here’s an excerpt from an article by George Demetriou (he’s long been my go-to guy for interpretation of NF rules) appearing last month in Referee:

“Where the ball meets the ground is of no consequence unless the referee judges the passer was under duress. Although that term does not appear in any rulebook, it is the embodiment of the motivation to conserve yardage and is indisputably a critical component of the foul. Duress is a judgment call and solely is within the domain of the referee. There can be a foul for intentional grounding to conserve time without duress, but not to conserve yardage — the intent to save yardage is simply not there unless a sack of the passer is likely.”

In his publication “Redding Study Guide to NFHS Football Rules,” Demitriou writes that one type of IG is a pass “thrown (under duress) into an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver.” (2020 Ed., p. 34). So, if time were critical in our play, it could be considered to be a foul. But if the QB simply gives up on the play without being in danger of being sacked, it’s no foul, since he was not “under duress.”

Here are a couple of excerpts from an article by Bill Lemonnier, one of the most accomplished white hats in B1G officiating history:

“When talking about intentional grounding, we use the term “under duress” as a pre- qualifier or requirement for ING to be called. It makes sense... a passer who’s under duress, in trouble or about to be sacked might intentionally throw the ball/pass away to avoid the loss. …”

“The next question is if the QB/passer is NOT under duress can he just end the play by throwing the ball into an area where there is no receiver or if he’s still in the tackle box, just throwing the ball forward to the ground and incomplete? And how about the QB/passer who throws the ball high over the end line when deep in the red zone? Most would argue that the passer is not avoiding a loss of yardage when no “heavy rush” is imminent. He’s only giving up the down.”

So, using the philosophy these two highly respected officiating leaders say is the proper way to interpret the rule, the answer to Scenario #3 above is: No foul.

[US31]

Ok....Devil's advocate.  Now give a detailed explanation of "duress".  😁

1. If a QB is safely in the pocket, 10 yards behind the LOS....is he in "duress"?
2. If after scanning for an open receiver, and not finding one for a few seconds....with the pocket still intact and 10 yards behind the LOS...is the QB in duress?
3. If in the next seconds, the pocket collapses and the QB is under heavy pressure is he under duress?

Under which of the above circumstances above would Mr. Demetriou allow a QB to IG the ball? 

I would argue that any high school QB knows that the progression of events from #1 to #3 happens very quickly.  By intentionally grounding the ball at step #2, he is avoiding the loss of yardage that he may reasonably assume will happens if he waits until the play gets to #3.  Should be flagged.

Is there not a reason the specific exemption for IG is written into the "kill the clock"?  Immediately after the snap.  To me that is the only way for the QB to truly not be in duress....at all other points, the QB is being actively pursued by the defense.  

Now, if we want to allow the QB to ground the ball when not under "duress" (as Mr. Demetriou seems to describe it)...I would suggest making the ball down at the spot of the throw.  How many officials want to have that on their plate along with everything else you have to manage with an arguably undersized crew?  None so it will never happen.

At LEAST 2 rules are in the book to address when a QB can intentionally ground the ball.  (IG rule and kill the clock rule.  I don't think adding conjecture to that is necessary.  You either ground it at the snap, or have to get it in the vicinity of a receiver (and I'm ok with chucking it well over a guys head on sideline or redzone...QB has to have enough ability and time to get that done).  

Great discussion....I just think we have too many lawyers in the officiating business, making the plain language of the rules more complicated than necessary.🤪

 

[Bobref]

5 hours ago, US31 said:

Great discussion....I just think we have too many lawyers in the officiating business, making the plain language of the rules more complicated than necessary.🤪

Or, we have too many “rule book officials,” who think the process starts and stops at the black letter language of the rule, without any consideration of philosophy or the intent of the rules makers.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Bobref

[Bobref]

5 hours ago, US31 said:

Ok....Devil's advocate.  Now give a detailed explanation of "duress".  😁

Way ahead of you, as usual. Here’s what Mr. LeMonnier had to say on that subject:

 In speaking with one coach about intentional grounding and the passer being under duress, he semi- jokingly replied that his passer was under duress from the time the snap started, maybe from the time they called the play. He might be right but the reality and purpose of this discussion is on identifying the elements of “under duress” so we can consistently rule on the legality of the pass. Is your definition of duress the same as my definition?
Here’s some indicators of duress... 1) panic on the part of the passer; 2) being chased or forced out of the pocket; 3) rushing the passing attempt because of a “heavy rush”.
QBs/passers who panic show it by rushing a throw because they see or sense the impending contact coming from the rush. They won’t care where the pass goes or if an eligible receiver is in the area. They’re getting rid of the ball hoping it will ease the pain of the hit they’re about to take or just trying to avoid the loss not caring whether it’s called “grounding” or not.
The passer who is chased or forced out of the pocket is different than the passer who sprints on of the pocket on a planned roll out type play. The roll out passer isn’t being forced out of his pocket or protection. Whether he’s under duress will depend on the rush and competency of his blockers. But simply rolling out is not an indicator of duress. When the passer is trying to set up or is set up in the pocket and now pulls the ball down and scrambles to avoid a potential sack, this is being under duress. If he chooses to pass then he needs to find an eligible receiver or get outside the tackle box and get the pass to or beyond the NZ to avoid the ING penalty.

The question we hear the most is, “Is it duress when the passer, under a heavy rush, stands his ground without flinching and throws it away? He didn’t show panic nor did he get flushed out of the pocket. At best he just dipped a shoulder to avoid contact and maintained his focus downfield trying to find a receiver. No receiver is in the area and the passer was not outside the tackle box.” Assuming the pass is not tipped nor the passer’s throw altered by the defender’s contact, the passer will be responsible for where he throws the pass when he is under duress or a heavy rush. So the answer is “yes” this is considered duress.

In my view, the concept of “duress” is no less imprecise than many other concepts we have to deal with regularly as officials. The situations where the concept will be the difference between foul and no foul will be few and far between. But the fact that it’s hard to enforce consistently because of the degree of judgment involved is not a reason to abandon the concept altogether.

[US31]

17 hours ago, Bobref said:

Or, we have too many “rule book officials,” who think the process starts and stops at the black letter language of the rule, without any consideration of philosophy or the intent of the rules makers.

My fault.....I assumed the intent of the rule makers was to prevent....

On 9/5/2021 at 7:17 AM, Bobref said:

e. A pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time.

And in my defense, the lawyer comment was made with full knowledge of @Bobref's noble profession😁👍

In all seriousness, I'm a cranky defensive coach.  But I'm thankful that Bob and the rest of the officials come her to talk, debate, discuss, and in my case (often)...vent.  Good luck to everyone this Friday!