Not that I had a dog in that fight last night...but this is for TRUE NFL football fans that actually watch football every Sunday...

How many times have we seen that same thing happen (qb out throw everyone on the field) and that was NOT called intentional grounding? What happened last night to make that situation special?

being in the endzone.........and following the letter of the law since it was the big show

__________________

*Recalibrating*

Intentional Grounding of Forward Pass
Intentional grounding of a forward pass is a foul: loss of down and 10 yards from previous spot if passer is in the field of play or loss of down at the spot of the foul if it occurs more than 10 yards behind the line or safety if passer is in his own end zone when ball is released.
Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.
Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).

I think they are gonna change the rule this off season. That "realistic" business doesn't stick because there are too many unknowns. We don't know if someone cut their route short, QB just over threw the ball, receiver fell down, etc. Also...if Brady was hit on the play, it would have been a defensive penalty anyway because Tuck was coming below the knees. Would have been real interesting to see how that would have played out. Also, if you look at the play, he wasn't facing "imminent loss" either.

I didnt think it was a horrible call, but I didnt think it was a good call either. I'm on the fence with it. Usually when i see that called in the end zone is when a defensive player is at least grabbing the QB and he throws it away to avoid the sack

And that was kinda my problem with it. Brady wasn't wrapped up nor was he touched. It was just kinda strange looking at it when every other Sunday it would be a throwaway and that's it.

__________________

*Recalibrating*

I think you just answered your own question. Brady was throwing the ball away because Tuck was about to sack him. That seemed quite clear to me on the play. You'll notice, no one -- not Brady, Belichick -- even bothered to argue. He *knew* he was just heaving it to avoid pressure. And having just watched a replay, it seems like Tuck hit him mid-thigh.
And you spoke of him not literally being touched. But how many intentional groundings do you see where the QB is being chased and throws it away (but gets a grounding because either they're in the pocket or don't get it to the line of scrimmage)? Just because you're not literally being touched doesn't mean you're not in imminent danger. If Brady holds that ball one more half-second, what happens? Sack by Tuck. Sounds -- and looked -- pretty imminent to me.

OK, I just watched the play again, and two things occured to me:

1) Tuck hits Brady at the waist. He wasn't even remotely close to being below the knee.

2) There is no receiver even in the trajectory of the pass. You can't overthrow someone if you're not even throwing the ball in their direction. It's not just that there's no receiver in the area of the ball. There's no receiver even in the path of the ball.

He just heaved it long because he had no other way of avoiding Tuck. I get what you mean about seeing this kinda play at other times, but I think the fact of it happening in the endzone made the officials more critical. It's one thing to avoid losing a few yards. It's another to avoid giving up points and possession.

And my point is that shouldn't be the case. I think that the rule will be changed because it is quite subjective. It wasn't like he was scrambling. He was standing tall in the pocket. He wasn't in the defensive players grasp when he released the ball. We know all QBs have a mental clock...and when that mental clock runs out...get rid of the ball and run another play.

In this case it shouldn't matter if he is standing at the 50 or standing in his own end-zone there is a lack of consistency when calling intentional grounding and some other calls. I have seen plenty of times where a QB will just barely get the ball to the line of scrimmage while scrambling and no eligible receiver is even close to the ball and the refs will let it go. Or even worse they throw the ball out of bounds where no one even has a chance in hell and the refs let it go. I've even seen plays where QB's overthrow everyone or a receiver runs a wrong route and the ball goes nowhere near anyone and the refs let it go.

Especially that.. and chances are they do that because they are about to get sack any sec now..and that is hardly ever called

You're conflating a couple of things. If a QB is scrambling out of the pocket, the rule as I understand it is he doesn't have to be throwing to a receiver. He just needs to get it back to the line of scrimmage. That's to prevent a scrambling QB from just spiking the ball.

Clearly Brady was in the pocket. And I disagree with your point about Brady not being in the grasp. He was a split-second from being sacked. Whether in the grasp or in imminent danger, he was half a second away from a sack.

And I think that's what ultimately makes this grounding. You're comparing this to other plays where a QB not under pressure throws it away based on his mental clock. That's not what happened here. Brady threw it away because he was under pressure and about to be sacked. He heard footsteps, not an alarm clock.

Maybe if anything they'll start enforcing it more now?

It'd be strange to see them make a rule change that openly allows QBs to just throw the ball away to anywhere regardless of anything. I don't know how good that's going to be for the game.

I mean, we all say there's holding on just about every pass play. But no one says we should just make holding legal because of officials' discretion in judgment.

You do realize he was back there for 7 seconds. Even the announcer said Tuck was coming in late. Also, there was a receiver coming across the middle of the field. So what merits being a "realistic chance of completing"?



Also, Welker was running an option route. 20 yards and in or 20 yards and post. Welker ran the in...Brady threw the post. Just like I say I have no dog in this fight. Just feel as if the rule should be more consistent. So why isn't "throwing the ball away" intentional grounding?

From the horse's mouth. The man who threw the ball admitted to just getting rid of it (as opposed to actually throwing to someone).

Kinda hard to argue with that wouldn't you say?

So conveniently over look "referees judgement call". But is ok..our minds pick out what we want to pick out. Just like I said...which still stands...any other game that would have just been an overthrow. You have a head referee who it was his first super bowl ever. But I digress. Just as I am saying, the rule should be and most likely will be rewritten to not be subjective.