Alright Football Geniuses, Gots a question er 2

[olevetonahill]

Regarding the QB spiking the ball to stop the clock.
#1 Why isnt it ruled a Fumble?
#2 If not a Fumble then "Intentionally grounding ?

I know its an accepted practice, But If the QB drops it by accident its a fumble. Or if he throws it into the ground then its Intentional grounding :confused:

[texaspokieokie]

what about the holder for field goals ?? how can he pass the ball, his knee is down when he takes the snap.

[nBoSTP]

The reaso'n it isn't a fumble is the QB's arm is going forward. As for intentional grounding that is actually a good question because the rule states the QB has to be out of the pocket plus get the ball back to the line of scrimmage. The only thing I can figure is if they consider the RB a close enough receiver

[soonerfromgeorgia]

How can it not be considered intentional grounding when he is actually intentionally grounding the ball to stop the clock?

What would be the call if the qb was in the shotgun and he looked down the field for a rec. but never moved and then he spiked the ball as the d closed in?

[btb916]

My guess is that, somewhere in the great big book of rules passed down from the sky, there is an exception for it. "And yet when the QuarterBack doth throw the ball directly into the ground without taking but one step back, he hath not committed intentional grounding, but spiked the ball."

[MeMyself&Me]

There is a special rule regarding spiking the ball to stop the clock. Seems I remember when it went into a effect years back but could be wrong... maybe it was just when I first heard it.

I don't remember why they made the special rule.

[1890MilesToNorman]

what about the holder for field goals ?? how can he pass the ball, his knee is down when he takes the snap.

Good question! :pop:

[AlbqSooner]

There is a rule on spiking the ball to stop the clock. I recall a couple of years ago in a game (Florida I think) where the QB took the snap, retreated about three or four steps and spiked the ball. It was called intentional grounding. The rule states that the QB must spike the ball immediately, rather than retreat and do so.
Yes, I am too lazy to look up either rule.:cool:

[Breadburner]

An incomplete pass is an incomplete pass no matter where its thrown....

[budbarrybob]

My rule pet peeve:
When a member of the punting team touches the ball, it is downed at the point where the ball is first touched... UNLESS his touching the ball causes it to go into the end-zone. :mad:

[BigTip]

The knee thing probably has something to do with the knee already being in contact with the ground, not coming into contact with it. Because ever kick attempt would be blown dead immediately if that weren't the rule.

[olevetonahill]

There is a rule on spiking the ball to stop the clock. I recall a couple of years ago in a game (Florida I think) where the QB took the snap, retreated about three or four steps and spiked the ball. It was called intentional grounding. The rule states that the QB must spike the ball immediately, rather than retreat and do so.
Yes, I am too lazy to look up either rule.:cool:

Dont come in here Just making shat up. Tell us why fer sure or STFU

[AlbqSooner]

Dont come in here Just making shat up. Tell us why fer sure or STFU

Leroid is my hero.:rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

Leroid is my hero.:rolleyes:

Figures you Old fart :pop:

[Flagstaffsooner]

NCAA rules are not for us to know.

[sooner518]

The ball spike rule came into effect in the 1990 season. I know this because they talked about it on GameDay yesterday as being a crucial part of the confusion at the end 5th Down Colorado/Mizzou game. It was because it was the first year teams could do that and everyone was confused about how it was supposed to work.

the FG-holder thing is an exception to the rule. The rulebook says something to the effect that if a team is lined up in a field goal formation, the holder of the kick can have a knee down, and from that position may hold for a kick, pass the ball, or advance the ball.

[StoopTroup]

It seems to be a proven fact that most of you can read and write as this is a message board and most of you have posted many times. The concept of being able to comprehend what is written or implied seems to be the only issue at hand. Now...the NCAA has a link to the rules which they and the Coaches, players and referees use to play these games. If I were you I'd refer you to those rules and if you have any trouble understanding them I'd suggest you contact Leroid. Although he's a math guy I'm pretty sure he'll be able to twist any answer you need so that your comfortable withthe answer. It might not be right but at least you'll be able to sleep at night like he apparently does.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Dont come in here Just making shat up. Tell us why fer sure or STFU

Is this another new rule???

[olevetonahill]

I dont want the Dayum Rules Ya Nincompoop, I wanta Argument/ discussion :P

[Mississippi Sooner]

It seems to be a proven fact that most of you can read and write as this is a message board and most of you have posted many times. The concept of being able to comprehend what is written or implied seems to be the only issue at hand. Now...the NCAA has a link to the rules which they and the Coaches, players and referees use to play these games. If I were you I'd refer you to those rules and if you have any trouble understanding them I'd suggest you contact Leroid. Although he's a math guy I'm pretty sure he'll be able to twist any answer you need so that your comfortable withthe answer. It might not be right but at least you'll be able to sleep at night like he apparently does.

So...you're saying that if someone wants the truth, they have to sleep with Leroid? :eek:

[1890MilesToNorman]

ST, we lazy bastages, this shouldn't be news to you? :D

[olevetonahill]

Is this another new rule???

Exclusive to SF only. WE can still make shat up at the Hideout :D

[1890MilesToNorman]

Damn, the rules are always changing on me.

[StoopTroup]

So...you're saying that if someone wants the truth, they have to sleep with Leroid? :eek:

If hammering the *** of a cold blooded Lizard is the only way you can get the answer you want..,.I say just do it, but I'd wrap the old Jimmy with a good amount of glad plastic wrap.

[olevetonahill]

Damn, the rules are always changing on me.

Thats how we keep idiots in suspense :P

[1890MilesToNorman]

This thread has become a dorkathon, :D You always start the good ones Vet.

[olevetonahill]

This thread has become a dorkathon, :D You always start the good ones Vet.

I have a knack :cool:

[PalmBeachSooner]

My rule pet peeve:
When a member of the punting team touches the ball, it is downed at the point where the ball is first touched... UNLESS his touching the ball causes it to go into the end-zone. :mad:

This is not true. It's called 'First Touching' it is an infraction but not a penalty. The receiving team has the option to take the ball where it was first touched by K or the result of the play. This applies to kickoffs as well (think onside kick). The play is not over simply because the ball was touched by K unless there is indifference by the receiving team.

There is a special rule for spiking the ball to stop the clock.

There are also special rules that only apply to place kicks. One of which allows the holder to IMMEDIATELY execute a fake by either tossing the ball to another player or coming to his feet. Any hesitation on his part and the play will be blown dead.

[yermom]

punting and kicking are different things though. a KO is live, either team can advance it (once it goes 10 yards)

punts can only be advanced by the receiving team, unless they touch the ball first, then it's live.

[MichiganSooner]

Some of the rules are seemingly dumb because they are inconsistent with other rules; example, your question of spiking the ball. Another concerns scoring a TD by pass or run. On a pass, the receiver has to have one foot in the endzone, have complete possession of the ball (it can't be bobbled), and if he falls to the ground he must retain possession. On the other hand, a running back can be knocked out of bounds at the 2 yard line, twist his body parellel to the ground while he extends the ball over the plane of the goal line, and it is a touchdown. He can even drop the ball while he does this if the ball crosses the plane of the goal line for 0.1 second in his hand. Rules say the ground cannot cause a fumble for a running back. But a receiver can catch the ball in the middle of the endzone, take several steps in the endzone, get plastered to the ground by a DBack, drop the ball when he lands on the ground and the rules say "not a catch".

[Scott D]

punting and kicking are different things though. a KO is live, either team can advance it (once it goes 10 yards)

punts can only be advanced by the receiving team, unless they touch the ball first, then it's live.

even if a receiving team player muffs a punt it can't be advanced by the kicking team.

[PhilTLL]

Some of the rules are seemingly dumb because they are inconsistent with other rules; example, your question of spiking the ball. Another concerns scoring a TD by pass or run. On a pass, the receiver has to have one foot in the endzone, have complete possession of the ball (it can't be bobbled), and if he falls to the ground he must retain possession. On the other hand, a running back can be knocked out of bounds at the 2 yard line, twist his body parellel to the ground while he extends the ball over the plane of the goal line, and it is a touchdown. He can even drop the ball while he does this if the ball crosses the plane of the goal line for 0.1 second in his hand. Rules say the ground cannot cause a fumble for a running back. But a receiver can catch the ball in the middle of the endzone, take several steps in the endzone, get plastered to the ground by a DBack, drop the ball when he lands on the ground and the rules say "not a catch".

No. This would be a TD and the play would be considered over the moment he established possession while touching the ground (once a foot is down and he isn't juggling). (Edit: If you catch it and aren't about to fall down, all it takes is full possession and a foot down; if you're falling you just have to secure it long enough to fall on your arse without it being dislodged.) Taking several steps would be pointless, and any hit that comes after the TD signal is a possible penalty, especially if it's clearly not part of the previous action. If the ball got dislodged while he was in the air, then he would be screwed, but once you have possession and a foot touches in bounds, that's a TD. If he takes several steps while not having full possession, that's his own fault.

The reason a runner (or a receiver who caught it outside the end zone, for that matter) can almost fumble the ball across the goal line is because he already established possession and once the ball crosses the plane, it's over. The receiver in your scenario has yet to establish possession. Just touching the ball once it crosses the goal line is not enough. Plus, the "knocked out at the 2, but stretched the ball across" scenario is consistent with the same rules anywhere else on the field--if you start to go out but clearly stretch the ball across a first-down line, you get the first, even if your knees hit out of bounds behind that spot. It's just phenomenally risky to stretch the ball forward anywhere but the end zone.

(Disclaimer in advance, if any of this is wrong I'm an idiot.)

[yermom]

even if a receiving team player muffs a punt it can't be advanced by the kicking team.

right, i forgot about that. happened in the Texas game last year

[bluedogok]

Some of the rules are seemingly dumb because they are inconsistent with other rules; example, your question of spiking the ball. Another concerns scoring a TD by pass or run. On a pass, the receiver has to have one foot in the endzone, have complete possession of the ball (it can't be bobbled), and if he falls to the ground he must retain possession. On the other hand, a running back can be knocked out of bounds at the 2 yard line, twist his body parellel to the ground while he extends the ball over the plane of the goal line, and it is a touchdown. He can even drop the ball while he does this if the ball crosses the plane of the goal line for 0.1 second in his hand. Rules say the ground cannot cause a fumble for a running back. But a receiver can catch the ball in the middle of the endzone, take several steps in the endzone, get plastered to the ground by a DBack, drop the ball when he lands on the ground and the rules say "not a catch".
That is more of an NFL interpretation, you seem to have to hold the ball for 5 minutes after a reception in the end zone but as soon as someone runs it across the line the play is over....like the Chris Johnson play that cost the Lions the win against the Bears in the first game of the season. It is not called like that in college (for the most part), which seems to be a more legitimate interpretation. I have seen TD receptions in college games that would be called incomplete in the NFL (other than the college one foot in rule) because the player didn't take the ball home with him.


even if a receiving team player muffs a punt it can't be advanced by the kicking team.


right, i forgot about that. happened in the Texas game last year
I have never understood the muff rule, to me it should be a fumble that can be advanced.

[Scott D]

I think it has to do with the fact that generally a muffed punt is considered to never actually have possession of the ball.

[agoo758]

While we are on the rule subject. I absolutely hate the fact that quarterbacks are allowed to throw the ball away when they are outside the pocket.

[MeMyself&Me]

While we are on the rule subject. I absolutely hate the fact that quarterbacks are allowed to throw the ball away when they are outside the pocket.

Me too. Just another one of the many rule changes over the year designed to encourage passing offenses thereby making the game more exciting. Things like that cheapen the game though.

[Scott D]

Jack Lambert hates that rule also, and I don't know that it's to encourage passing offenses as much as it's another one of the myriad of "Protect the Quarterback" rules.

[MeMyself&Me]

Well, I don't remember any special rules to protect the quarterback for when running option. He takes a lot of blows doing that.

[BoulderSooner79]

The spiking rule came over from the NFL (1980s?) as many rule changes do. The motivation as I recall (but I'm old), is that the old method of throwing the ball over a receivers head who was standing near the side-lines was too hard to interpret. The issue was exactly when the clock stopped; think of doofus Colt McCoy and when the ball hit the ground in the CCG last year. So they put in an exception that was easy for both the referee *and* the time keeper to get right. I see no problem with it since the team is sacrificing a down. One loop-hole I do think is bogus, is that the QB can fake the spike and then drop back and throw. Dan Marino tossed a touchdown after a fake spike when the D stopped playing. You don't see that done anymore and I suspect there is a "code of honor" meaning if a QB does that, he can expect to get his clock cleaned sometime later on.

[ouduckhunter]

NCAA rules are not for us to know.

HaHa!! That's kind of like what Nanny Pelosi said about Obama Care too...we need to pass the bill to find out what's in it! ;)

[Scott D]

The spiking rule came over from the NFL (1980s?) as many rule changes do. The motivation as I recall (but I'm old), is that the old method of throwing the ball over a receivers head who was standing near the side-lines was too hard to interpret. The issue was exactly when the clock stopped; think of doofus Colt McCoy and when the ball hit the ground in the CCG last year. So they put in an exception that was easy for both the referee *and* the time keeper to get right. I see no problem with it since the team is sacrificing a down. One loop-hole I do think is bogus, is that the QB can fake the spike and then drop back and throw. Dan Marino tossed a touchdown after a fake spike when the D stopped playing. You don't see that done anymore and I suspect there is a "code of honor" meaning if a QB does that, he can expect to get his clock cleaned sometime later on.

I doubt Brady is going to get his clock cleaned anytime soon.

[bluedogok]

Yep Brady and Moss tried it last week but didn't connect. There have been lots of players try the fake spike play since Marino did it against the Jets.

[BoulderSooner79]

Yep Brady and Moss tried it last week but didn't connect. There have been lots of players try the fake spike play since Marino did it against the Jets.

I readily admit I don't watch much NFL and the Marino play became somewhat famous (1st time it was done maybe?). But I think it is a low class move and I'm surprised it's legal. It's a very specific exception to the intentional grounding rule that is a sort of "courtesy" to the offense. I don't think it should be allowed to be used beyond that.

[agoo758]

I readily admit I don't watch much NFL and the Marino play became somewhat famous (1st time it was done maybe?). But I think it is a low class move and I'm surprised it's legal. It's a very specific exception to the intentional grounding rule that is a sort of "courtesy" to the offense. I don't think it should be allowed to be used beyond that.


That's almost like saying that the "pump fake" is a low class move IMO.

[bluedogok]

It just goes to show the defense to be ready for anything on every play, I don't see anything wrong with it.

I do believe the Marino play was the first to do a fake spike play.

[agoo758]

I also remember when Peyton Manning did a fake spike at the end of a half and ran it in for a touchdown, only to realize that the refs thought he spiked and blew the whistle. :D

[BoulderSooner79]

That's almost like saying that the "pump fake" is a low class move IMO.

I don't see it as the same at all. Ball fakes are part of the game - hiding the ball or faking one type of play to run another. They are not playing with technical of a specific rule which in itself is an exception. Before the spike rule, there was no issue - over-throwing a receiver was a normal play and faking that was like any other fake. I see this as similar to making a fair catch and then taking off. The rule handles that one correctly.

[ashley]

Spiking the ball into the ground to kill the clock was first legal under NCAA rules in the early sixties. After a year or so they stopped this and instituted it later. I know it was legal in 1963.

[MichiganSooner]

To clear up what I was saying earlier about inconsistent rules for a running back and a receiver: If a running back fumbles the ball because he was slammed to the ground, it may be ruled not a fumble because the ground cannot cause a fumble. If a receiver catches a pass, say along the sideline, and holds securely onto the ball even after being drilled out of bounds and while he is flying through the air but drops or just bobbles the ball when he smashes into the ground, it is ruled no catch because he did not maintain possession. If the ground can not cause a fumble for a running back why can the ground cause a fumble for a receiver?

[soonercastor]

That's almost like saying that the "pump fake" is a low class move IMO.

well its just like the fake kneel, which is illegal and draws a penalty.

[Jacie]

To clear up what I was saying earlier about inconsistent rules for a running back and a receiver: If a running back fumbles the ball because he was slammed to the ground, it may be ruled not a fumble because the ground cannot cause a fumble. If a receiver catches a pass, say along the sideline, and holds securely onto the ball even after being drilled out of bounds and while he is flying through the air but drops or just bobbles the ball when he smashes into the ground, it is ruled no catch because he did not maintain possession. If the ground can not cause a fumble for a running back why can the ground cause a fumble for a receiver?

I am thinking it is because the catch-fall-impact-drop or bobble situation happens so quickly, it is, even with frame-by-frame replay, difficult to determine if the receiver had possession. Consider when it happens outside of the endzone, the call is made based on whether the receiver took steps with the ball secured and if not, then it will usually be called as an incompletion not a catch-fumble.

A ball carrier, unless he is clearly bobbling the ball, has established possession.

[MichiganSooner]

Just 2 or 3 years ago, I remember an OU receiver making a catch maybe 5 feet from the sideline and 5 yards deep in the endzone. He had the ball; it was a crossing route and his momentum carried him out of bounds. He was smashed by a defender right after the catch. Fell hard out of bounds and ball came out when he hit the ground. Official ruled no TD; fans booed. Saw taped version of game the next day and TV announcers were saying, "he caught it but did not maintain possession when he hit the ground. The media questioned Stoops on Tuesday and Stoops said he had to maintain possession. I am just saying it is inconsistent to hold the receivers to a higher standard than the running back.
Of course, my rant will likely not change anything.

[yermom]

if the receiver takes a step or two, then he's the same as a running back

until he actually makes the catch, he doesn't have possession. if a defender hits him before he has possession, it's an incomplete pass, not a fumble. it's the same deal

[S.PadreIsl.Sooner]

My guess is that, somewhere in the great big book of rules passed down from the sky, there is an exception for it. "And yet when the QuarterBack doth throw the ball directly into the ground without taking but one step back, he hath not committed intentional grounding, but spiked the ball."


And whendst thou throweth the Holy Football Spike, Ye shall count to Three.
Not to two unless followeth with a Three. Four is right out!

[Soonersince57]

I think Romo did all of these yesterday.