• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NFL Week 11 Thread

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ken g6 said:
Or it's Elway's fault, because you need to build a metaphorical nuclear reactor to compete in the NFL. Elway picked players that think like spider monkeys, and even one that's named like that.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Elway is not going to fire himself. So in the culpability chain, whose fault is it going to be?
 
Darwin333 said:
That had to be some sort of busted assignment or miscue, the Saints brought pressure which he saw and he went to dump it off. I gotta assume that he thought someone was going to be there because IG is literally the absolute worst penalty you can get in that situation. Not only did they lose 10 yards, taking them out of field goal range, but they also got a 10 second runoff of the clock taking them from 28 seconds to 18 with no timeouts.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate him doing that. After doing the seemingly impossible and tying up the game it would have sucked if the Skins would have won it with just over a minute left to get down the field and kick a field goal.
Click to expand...
Crowder missed the audible call and ran the wrong route.

The NFL also called Bruce Allen today and told them that intentional grounding was the wrong call and should in fact not have been called, keeping the Redskins in FG range.

Literally everything that was even remotely possible to go wrong, went wrong for the Redskins and they lost.
 
purbeast0 said:
Crowder missed the audible call and ran the wrong route.

The NFL also called Bruce Allen today and told them that intentional grounding was the wrong call and should in fact not have been called, keeping the Redskins in FG range.

Literally everything that was even remotely possible to go wrong, went wrong for the Redskins and they lost.
Click to expand...

True, tell you what though, this was the 1st complete game I got to watch Cousins and that dude is deadly accurate, he will fetch big $$ after the season's over with. Just look at teams like Denver who (had, but they have appeared to give up lately) a good defense but no true QB to make those "in the bucket" throws Cousins was dropping in at will yesterday.
 
BUTCH1 said:
True, tell you what though, this was the 1st complete game I got to watch Cousins and that dude is deadly accurate, he will fetch big $$ after the season's over with. Just look at teams like Denver who (had, but they have appeared to give up lately) a good defense but no true QB to make those "in the bucket" throws Cousins was dropping in at will yesterday.
Click to expand...
Oh I know I wanted Cousins signed to a long term deal after the 2015 season. I would have bet my life savings they were going to sign him to long term deal last off season. But nope, stupid ass front office of the Redskins are dumb as fuck and now they are basically being held hostage by Cousins. I wouldn't blame Cousins in the least if he left Washington too, you should hear the fucking dumb fans around here blaming the loss yesterday (and basically any loss) on Cousins.

Imagine if Cousins had any receivers or a running game. He's pretty much doing it all himself. Yesterday was the most rushing yards the Redskins have had all season other than the Rams game I think, and now Thompson, their best offensive player, is out for the rest of the season.
 
purbeast0 said:
Crowder missed the audible call and ran the wrong route.

The NFL also called Bruce Allen today and told them that intentional grounding was the wrong call and should in fact not have been called, keeping the Redskins in FG range.

Literally everything that was even remotely possible to go wrong, went wrong for the Redskins and they lost.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that's surprising. Seemed pretty open and close call by the letter of the law to me, even though it was clearly a busted/mis-run route. He was in the pocket and threw it to no one anywhere near the area. How is that not the right call? Why would a missed route have anything to do with where the ball actually goes?
 
zinfamous said:
Hmm, that's surprising. Seemed pretty open and close call by the letter of the law to me, even though it was clearly a busted/mis-run route. He was in the pocket and threw it to no one anywhere near the area. How is that not the right call? Why would a missed route have anything to do with where the ball actually goes?
Click to expand...
Because he wasn't intentionally throwing it away.
 
purbeast0 said:
Because he wasn't intentionally throwing it away.
Click to expand...

so? Can intent actually be enforced appropriately at the time of infraction? I mean, say you discuss this as refs and with the offense and QB: of course the offending party will always argue that it was not their intent to toss it where no one was. Even when it's plainly obvious among viewers and refs and experts and what not. ....I don't see how the claim can be fairly defended across all situations. If the receiver is not in the place where they are supposed to be and it causes a grounding by rule, I tend to lean towards "tough titties" and lay blame on the receiver.
 
zinfamous said:
so? Can intent actually be enforced appropriately at the time of infraction? I mean, say you discuss this as refs and with the offense and QB: of course the offending party will always argue that it was not their intent to toss it where no one was. Even when it's plainly obvious among viewers and refs and experts and what not. ....I don't see how the claim can be fairly defended across all situations. If the receiver is not in the place where they are supposed to be and it causes a grounding by rule, I tend to lean towards "tough titties" and lay blame on the receiver.
Click to expand...
I mean you just don't understand the rule. It's called "intentional grounding" because the QB is intentionally throwing the ball away to avoid a sack or pressure. That wasn't the case on that play.
 
purbeast0 said:
I mean you just don't understand the rule. It's called "intentional grounding" because the QB is intentionally throwing the ball away to avoid a sack or pressure. That wasn't the case on that play.
Click to expand...

I know what the rule is and I know what it's called, but what you are claiming isn't my argument. My argument is about enforcement when it comes to intent. Why is it incumbent on the refs to figure out whether or not the receiver ran the wrong route, at the point of the infraction, and therefore rely on the argument of the offense in defense of their penalty? You see I'm making a different argument, right? Of course the NFL can come out in hindsight and say "well, the QB expected someone to be there, so...." But that is irrelevant to the action on the field, when the penalty needs to be called (or not). He was being rushed and obviously didn't want a sack. He threw the ball to where Crowder was supposed to be, but he wasn't there. No one was there. A QB tossing a ball to an empty part of the field, in the pocket, with defenders on his neck is a pretty obvious grounding call.

I think 98% of people that know the rule can easily defend it being called on that play even if you accept (as I do), that it wasn't the QB's intent to throw it away. Think about the bullshit "tuck" and how it was called appropriately by the rule, even though it was clearly bullshit for anyone watching. 😀
 
zinfamous said:
I know what the rule is and I know what it's called, but what you are claiming isn't my argument. My argument is about enforcement when it comes to intent. Why is it incumbent on the refs to figure out whether or not the receiver ran the wrong route, at the point of the infraction, and therefore rely on the argument of the offense in defense of their penalty? You see I'm making a different argument, right? Of course the NFL can come out in hindsight and say "well, the QB expected someone to be there, so...." But that is irrelevant to the action on the field, when the penalty needs to be called (or not). He was being rushed and obviously didn't want a sack. He threw the ball to where Crowder was supposed to be, but he wasn't there. No one was there. A QB tossing a ball to an empty part of the field, in the pocket, with defenders on his neck is a pretty obvious grounding call.

I think 98% of people that know the rule can easily defend it being called on that play even if you accept (as I do), that it wasn't the QB's intent to throw it away. Think about the bullshit "tuck" and how it was called appropriately by the rule, even though it was clearly bullshit for anyone watching. 😀
Click to expand...
Again, you simply don't understand the rule. It's not a penalty for just throwing the ball to where no receivers are around. That is false. It's about throwing it to where no receivers can make a play in order to avoid a sack or pressure.

Here's a link to the rule and note that it specifically says if it's thrown due to losing yardage.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#section-2-intentional-grounding

It's all about "intent" which is why it's called intentional grounding. He wasn't being rushed and wasn't throwing it with the intent of avoiding a sack. You could tell that was his plan from before the ball was even snapped. As soon as he gets the ball, he turns and throws it. There isn't even a Saints player close to him about to make him get sacked. I fault KC for not pleading his case more though because you see a lot of QB's doing that even when they DO intentionally throw away.

https://twitter.com/MarkBullockNFL/status/932655492802936835
 
purbeast0 said:
Again, you simply don't understand the rule. It's not a penalty for just throwing the ball to where no receivers are around. That is false. It's about throwing it to where no receivers can make a play in order to avoid a sack or pressure.

Here's a link to the rule and note that it specifically says if it's thrown due to losing yardage.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#section-2-intentional-grounding

It's all about "intent" which is why it's called intentional grounding. He wasn't being rushed and wasn't throwing it with the intent of avoiding a sack. You could tell that was his plan from before the ball was even snapped. As soon as he gets the ball, he turns and throws it. There isn't even a Saints player close to him about to make him get sacked. I fault KC for not pleading his case more though because you see a lot of QB's doing that even when they DO intentionally throw away.

https://twitter.com/MarkBullockNFL/status/932655492802936835
Click to expand...

Well at best he was two seconds away from taking a sack if not less and another defender that had gotten through the middle of the O-line but was then tripped up so the question is how close to getting sacked is required before it's intentional grounding?
 
Darwin333 said:
Well at best he was two seconds away from taking a sack if not less and another defender that had gotten through the middle of the O-line but was then tripped up so the question is how close to getting sacked is required before it's intentional grounding?
Click to expand...
Considering the NFL said they got it wrong and it shouldn't have been called, it's closer than that.
 
purbeast0 said:
Again, you simply don't understand the rule. It's not a penalty for just throwing the ball to where no receivers are around. That is false. It's about throwing it to where no receivers can make a play in order to avoid a sack or pressure.

Here's a link to the rule and note that it specifically says if it's thrown due to losing yardage.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#section-2-intentional-grounding

It's all about "intent" which is why it's called intentional grounding. He wasn't being rushed and wasn't throwing it with the intent of avoiding a sack. You could tell that was his plan from before the ball was even snapped. As soon as he gets the ball, he turns and throws it. There isn't even a Saints player close to him about to make him get sacked. I fault KC for not pleading his case more though because you see a lot of QB's doing that even when they DO intentionally throw away.

https://twitter.com/MarkBullockNFL/status/932655492802936835
Click to expand...

you're right, he isn't really being pressured or rushed at that point. If you follow my argument, it hinges on the fact that I recall him being heavily pressured and facing a sack at the point of the throw, which he wasn't now that I see it again. So yeah, bad call.
 
Darwin333 said:
Well at best he was two seconds away from taking a sack if not less and another defender that had gotten through the middle of the O-line but was then tripped up so the question is how close to getting sacked is required before it's intentional grounding?
Click to expand...

I agree with the NFL on this one. Cousins wasn’t in imminent danger so intentional grounding seems like the wrong call. If we took the “threw to where no receiver was” to its furthest possible interpretation then spiking the ball to stop the clock would be IG also.

Full disclosure, I’m a Saints fan and of course wanted them to win but still think that was the wrong call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top