I really dislike the No intentional grounding rule

[Dback Jon]

It really makes a mockery of The intent of the rule. In really favors extremely mobile quarterbacks.

Personally I think the ball still needs to be in the Vincinity of an eligible receiver no matter where the quarterback is throwing from

 

[devilalum]

If you're watching Scam that ball did NOT go past the line of scrimmage either.

 

[Dback Jon]

If you're watching Scam that ball did NOT go past the line of scrimmage either.

I didn't think it did as well

He basically just threw it straight out of bounds

 

[gmabel830]

Gotta protect the QBs... rule will never change

 

[CardsFan88]

I think what DbackJon is saying is that it's a better protector for scrambling QB's then pocket ones.

Scrambling ones tend to be outside the pocket and it's easy for them to chuck it away, whereas the traditional one has to first make an effort to get outside and then throw it away.

So one way would be to make it need to go to a receiver, or another one is to simply allow them to throw it away no matter where they are. This middle ground benefits some more then others, and it's a consistent advantage every week.

 

[Jetstream Green]

The worst rule in the NFL that benefits scrambling QBs is the QB slide rule. Defenders cannot tackle well because they do not know when the shifty guy is going to slide and I think once you get past the line of scrimmage you are a freaking football player and should not be able to avoid a tackle in my opinion

 

[Bert]

They need to change the rule. I've said it everytime we play the Seahawks it's completely unfair. All a mobile QB has to do is move out of the pocket and chuck it out of bounds past the LOS and it's not grounding.

It completely benefits one style of QB play. Bad rule

 

[Russ Smith]

The out of pocket thing is true but they don't even call it in the pocket as we saw at least twice against Minnesota, Bridgewater in the pocket throws the ball out of bounds, way out of bounds, to avoid a sack.

 

[Dude]

I never thought of it that way. It does make it a lot easier for the mobile QB. That's big difference for some. They can at lest make it to the line not around it.

 

[MrYeahBut]

I saw a couple pathetic plays in the Pack - cowboy game where Rodgers was clearly in the defenders grasp and he just chucked the ball forward with his left hand. Something like that should be grounding..

 

[CardLogic]

While we are at it. . .

Change the name of it - because it's stupid to say, "Not intentional grounding. . ." on a play which that is exactly what occurred, but it was legal because of the rules.

 

[JCSunsfan]

The worst rule in the NFL that benefits scrambling QBs is the QB slide rule. Defenders cannot tackle well because they do not know when the shifty guy is going to slide and I think once you get past the line of scrimmage you are a freaking football player and should not be able to avoid a tackle in my opinion

Just do not allow tackling on the QB, give him flags.

 

[Big D]

QB's benefiting from their athleticism is not any kind of unfair advantage. Some guys are mobile, some guys have strong arms, some guys are great at reading defenses, etc. I don't think rules need to be altered because they favor a certain skill.

Any given player's strong suits SHOULD give them certain advantages and put them in favorible positions at times. It's a pretty basic prinicpal of sports at all levels actually.

 

[crisper57]

I just want them to enforce the LOS part of the rule. Make that reviewable.

 

[WisconsinCard]

The out of pocket thing is true but they don't even call it in the pocket as we saw at least twice against Minnesota, Bridgewater in the pocket throws the ball out of bounds, way out of bounds, to avoid a sack.

This is where I take issue and agree with you Russ. The QB is in the pocket and yes there is a receivers in the area who is obviously well covered and throws the ball into row 7 of the cheap seats.

 

[Big D]

Dan Marino was hands down the best QB I ever saw at knowing when to just throw the ball away and live to pay another down. I can't tell you how many times I saw him sail one over the head of a reciever into the stands inside the redzone only to come back and throw a TD on the very next play.

I don't think things would be too different in today's game. I think it had more to do with his intellegence/presense. Him knowing the situation, being able to remain collected, and quickly discerning what to do with the football more so than the rules or anything else. It's truly a lost art these days.

 

[Dude]

QB's benefiting from their athleticism is not any kind of unfair advantage.

It's not an unfair advantage by itself. They can run to get away from a sac or extend a play.

Some guys are mobile, some guys have strong arms, some guys are great at reading defenses, etc. I don't think rules need to be altered because they favor a certain skill.

The rule was implemented to protect the QB not to give one skill set an advantage or put the defense at a bigger disadvantage.

Any given player's strong suits SHOULD give them certain advantages and put them in favorible positions at times. It's a pretty basic prinicpal of sports at all levels actually.

They all have that without the rule.

 

[Big D]

The premise the thread started with was that the rule favors mobile QBs and that it should be changed. I don't agree with wanting to chnage a rule becaue it favors a certain skill set.

 

[Russ Smith]

QB's benefiting from their athleticism is not any kind of unfair advantage. Some guys are mobile, some guys have strong arms, some guys are great at reading defenses, etc. I don't think rules need to be altered because they favor a certain skill.

Any given player's strong suits SHOULD give them certain advantages and put them in favorible positions at times. It's a pretty basic prinicpal of sports at all levels actually.

But why the distinction inside or outside the tackles? Do they really think guys inside the tackles aren't at risk of getting hurt too? If the running QB can throw it away outside to protect him why not inside the pocket.

I don't remember the game but Jim Hart once almost completed a pass in a game and got called for grounding in the mid 70's. The ball was actually nearly a great catch I think by the TE and they called grounding, said he threw it away to avoid the pass rush. Today you can throw the ball nowhere near anybody but it's ok if it's in the area of the LOS.

 

[Dude]

The premise the thread started with was that the rule favors mobile QBs and that it should be changed. I don't agree with wanting to chnage a rule becaue it favors a certain skill set.

Well not completely the OP had intent of the rule as well.

It really makes a "mockery of The intent of the rule". In really favors extremely mobile quarterbacks. Personally I think the ball still needs to be in the Vincinity of an eligible receiver no matter where the quarterback is throwing from.

It's intent was to protect the QB. It started before we had all the new mobile QB's and more importantly to me the low and head rule. It now gives most of the protection an advantage to only one skill set. They will still have the advantages their skill set provides. IMO it's not needed anymore. They should go back to the old rule and just extend the low and head rule to around the line of scrimmage. They can still get rid of the ball if they can get in the Vincinity of an eligible receiver. If not they can get my god tackled around the waist.

 

[Big D]

But why the distinction inside or outside the tackles? Do they really think guys inside the tackles aren't at risk of getting hurt too? If the running QB can throw it away outside to protect him why not inside the pocket.

I don't remember the game but Jim Hart once almost completed a pass in a game and got called for grounding in the mid 70's. The ball was actually nearly a great catch I think by the TE and they called grounding, said he threw it away to avoid the pass rush. Today you can throw the ball nowhere near anybody but it's ok if it's in the area of the LOS.

My guess is that if the QB makes it outside the tackle box then theoretically he no longer has anyone in front of him to block for him or protect him. Also it means at least some attempt is being made to do something other than just chucking the ball away to avoid a sack/loss, even if it's only taking 4 or 5 steps to the left or right.

I honestly don't know. Maybe it is dumb, but I don't agree that it should be changed because it favors one skill set over another, that is all.

 

[Russ Smith]

I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up amending the rule and if they do it will be the Russell Wilson amendment. he's the one exploiting it the most now, running towards the sidelines and just flipping the ball forward out of bounds.

I think the NFL will eventually amend the rule to say you can't do that, not sure how they will word it.

 

[devilalum]

The irony here is that the rule protects mobile QBs more and they are not the ones who really need the extra protection.

IMO this rule threatens the integrity of the game. Its like giving guys a cheat coupon.

 

[Big D]

The irony here is that the rule protects mobile QBs more and they are not the ones who really need the extra protection.

This is what I don't agree with. The rule is the same for everyone. If a guy is more athletic and can move, that is his athleticism giving him an advantage, not a rule.

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

Gotta protect the QBs... rule will never change

I'm curious to see the data on QB knee, ankle etc..injuries since they started "protecting" them so much.

Seems like the safer they try to make the game, the more injuries I see.

I also think the slide rule is BS.. you wanna run downfield like a big boy? Take the hit like a big boy Nancy!