Tuck rule explained...

[Steve]

Another question: why isn't spiking the ball to stop the clock considered intentional grounding?

Because the QB is not intentionally throwing the ball away to avoid the immediate threat of a loss of yardage. The play by RGIII was also rightly also not called intentional grounding for this very reason.

Now the decision to overturn the fumble call still appears to be a bad one.

[zwclones51]

What the eff is up with our fan base wanting to send emails with every little thing that doesn't go our way. Yes I'm ****** at the officials. Two calls at the very least didn't go our way that should of but I don't see the need in bombarding people with emails.

[1Cy]

What the eff is up with our fan base wanting to send emails with every little thing that doesn't go our way. Yes I'm ****** at the officials. Two calls at the very least didn't go our way that should of but I don't see the need in bombarding people with emails.

i think its a way for them to express their dissatisfaction and frustration.

[HFCS]

Another question: why isn't spiking the ball to stop the clock considered intentional grounding?

I always thought it was because eligible receivers like several running backs and tight ends are all within several yards of where the qb will spike the ball.

Some on this board have stated intentional grounding is about being under pressure though.

[wright4cy]

Someone or ones need reeducated and or lose their job , too many terrible calls This game .

[Rhoadhoused]

I always thought it was because eligible receivers like several running backs and tight ends are all within several yards of where the qb will spike the ball.

Some on this board have stated intentional grounding is about being under pressure though.

The rule specifically says that intentional grounding is throwing the ball away where no receivers are/not past the line of scrimmage ect, to avoid a sack. The bolded part is the important part. Since you are not trying to avoid a sack it isn't intentional grounding.

[Hawkeye11en1]

I haven't seen the replay, but it certainly looked as though the ball came out at the very end of his throwing motion. He didn't appear to be bringing it back into his body. He was trying to stop the throw, yes, but it was still in his throwing motion, making it an incomplete pass.

[madcityCY]

I haven't seen the replay, but it certainly looked as though the ball came out at the very end of his throwing motion. He didn't appear to be bringing it back into his body. He was trying to stop the throw, yes, but it was still in his throwing motion, making it an incomplete pass.

Typically, when you're intending to throw outward to a target, the arm/ hand extends toward that target, and the ball follows in the general direction. When you pump fake, you tend to keep a crook in the elbow, which will keep the point of the ball pointed at the ground.

I've never intended to throw outward to a target, and have it hit at my feet. I have tried to pump fake, and had the ball hit the ground at my feet.

[Clonefan94]

Typically, when you're intending to throw outward to a target, the arm/ hand extends toward that target, and the ball follows in the general direction. When you pump fake, you tend to keep a crook in the elbow, which will keep the point of the ball pointed at the ground.

I've never intended to throw outward to a target, and have it hit at my feet. I have tried to pump fake, and had the ball hit the ground at my feet.

Exactly. We got screwed on that, no two ways about it. Anyone who says any different, is either lying to themselves and us or confusing pro rules with college. In the pros, that would have been an incomplete pass. In college, it's obvious, he was trying to hold on to the ball and not pass it, therefore it's a fumble. It is literally becoming a joke the amount of bad replay calls that go against us. Although, it wouldn't surprise me, after this to see the tuck rule get implemented in college football as well, just to cover their *****.

And to Hawkeye11en1, if you haven't seen a replay, you really should watch it. The issue, my main issue with the call, just like the Woody Touchdown, was that it was ruled one way on the field, then reversed. Once the play was called a fumble, there is no way, by looking at a replay, that you can see evidence that he was actually trying to throw the ball to anyone. That is the real issue here. Call it incomplete and not over turn it, I'm a little better with that call. The problem is, is the ability of these refs to make decisions based on insufficient evidence. Something that the rules state, they are not supposed to do. As I said earlier, the fact that it was called a fumble, I don't see how anyone can see anything in that replay that supports turning that into an incomplete pass, unless we go with the pro rules, which to not exist in college.

I'm actually glad the Mizzou game isn't on TV. I'm really not in the mood to see another game of crap officiating.
Although, if we don't get the breaks in this game, then I don't know what to say, does the Big XII have us confused with Mizzou. We are one of the few dying to hold this conference together.