Intentional Grounding

**cyclonefan_1** · 10-23-2011, 01:11 AM

During the game, it seemed as if the refs were conferring with Tannehill if he was throwing at a receiver or not. Last time i checked, the ref was supposed to determine if there was a receiver in the area of the targeted throw. I thought the rules defining the rules of a receiver being in the area were pretty black and white. Has anyone ever seen something like this questioning of the quarterback before?

**Hawkeye11en1** · 10-23-2011, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by cyclonefan_1

During the game, it seemed as if the refs were conferring with Tannehill if he was throwing at a receiver or not. Last time i checked, the ref was supposed to determine if there was a receiver in the area of the targeted throw. I thought the rules defining the rules of a receiver being in the area were pretty black and white. Has anyone ever seen something like this questioning of the quarterback before?

Are you asking if the refs ever get together to go over an intentional grounding call? If so, yes they do. All the time. They ask one if he was in the pocket, the other if it went passed the LOS and then they figure out if a receiver was in the vicinity.

Now, you confused me on the last part. They asked the QB himself?

**Me State** · 10-23-2011, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye11en1

Originally Posted by cyclonefan_1

During the game, it seemed as if the refs were conferring with Tannehill if he was throwing at a receiver or not. Last time i checked, the ref was supposed to determine if there was a receiver in the area of the targeted throw. I thought the rules defining the rules of a receiver being in the area were pretty black and white. Has anyone ever seen something like this questioning of the quarterback before?

Are you asking if the refs ever get together to go over an intentional grounding call? If so, yes they do. All the time. They ask one if he was in the pocket, the other if it went passed the LOS and then they figure out if a receiver was in the vicinity. Now, you confused me on the last part. They asked the QB himself?

The second time when they ruled it wasn't intentional grounding the reds were talking to the A&M qb and he was pointing and talking to them. After the conversation they decided it wasn't intentional grounding. I can't remember if they talked to him after the first one that they ruled was intentional grounding.

**AllN4Cy** · 10-23-2011, 08:08 AM

In both cases it did look like they were asking the qb questions, which doesn't make sense. All I know is on the second non call, I want to see the receivers ticket to the game. The ball was thrown into the stands right in front of me and the ref said there was a receiver in the area. I didn't see any aTm receivers sitting near by.

**agcy68** · 10-23-2011, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye11en1

Are you asking if the refs ever get together to go over an intentional grounding call? If so, yes they do. All the time. They ask one if he was in the pocket, the other if it went passed the LOS and then they figure out if a receiver was in the vicinity.

Now, you confused me on the last part. They asked the QB himself?

Yes, the head official talked to Tannerhill about 15 seconds before he dropped the flag. He didn't talk to any other officials, just the QB.

**driegner** · 10-23-2011, 08:15 AM

We don't know what they said, but I'd LOVE to know.

**agcy68** · 10-23-2011, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by driegner

We don't know what they said, but I'd LOVE to know.

I can imagine:
official: I think I have to call Int. Grounding there
Tannerhill: You think so?
O: yeah, it was pretty obvious
T: I suppose. The boosters won't be happy
O: I know. Can you let them know I will make up for it later?
T: Sure
O: Hopefully they won't ding my pay too much
T: I'll let them know...
O: Next time don't make it so obvious OK? I don't want to get fired over something like that.
T: got it.

**Stormin** · 10-23-2011, 08:28 AM

Tannehill claimed he had a receiver in the area. Evidently the aTm receiver ran a route about 40 rows up into the ISU stands when Tannehill unloaded that throw as he was about to be sacked.

In reality, it should have been "intentional grounding". Just one of many "no calls" that went aTm's way. Officiating sucked.......again. Really bad PI call on aTm's first TD drive. Really, really, really bad call. That completely changed the game.

**ISUAlum2002** · 10-23-2011, 08:35 AM

I thought the second instance of intentional grounding (the one that wasn't called) was more obvious than the first instance (which was called).

**ISUAlum2002** · 10-23-2011, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Stormin

In reality, it should have been "intentional grounding". Just one of many "no calls" that went aTm's way. Officiating sucked.......again. Really bad PI call on aTm's first TD drive. Really, really, really bad call. That completely changed the game.

Yes, that PI call was especially bad. The receiver wasn't even fighting to get to the ball, he had given up on it. If the receiver doesn't think he can catch it, and obviously he didn't think he could, he shouldn't be rewarded with a PI call from the officials. If he had been fighting to get around our defender (can't remember who it was, Benton? Reeves?), then I could completely understand calling the PI there. But the receiver just kind of trotted out of bounds. That should have been a no-call, and the people on this board whining about the booing that came from that call need to realize how big of a gaffe it was.

**Stormin** · 10-23-2011, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by ISUAlum2002

Yes, that PI call was especially bad. The receiver wasn't even fighting to get to the ball, he had given up on it. If the receiver doesn't think he can catch it, and obviously he didn't think he could, he shouldn't be rewarded with a PI call from the officials. If he had been fighting to get around our defender (can't remember who it was, Benton? Reeves?), then I could completely understand calling the PI there. But the receiver just kind of trotted out of bounds. That should have been a no-call, and the people on this board whining about the booing that came from that call need to realize how big of a gaffe it was.

That was a horrendous PI call against ISU. Definite game changer. The breaks seemed to go aTm's way when the game was on the line. Once aTm got the lead and appeared to be safe, then the officiating was better. It appeared that the officials have an underlying bias when the game is in doubt. Coincidence?? Not IMO.