this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

NFL

51 readers
9 users here now

A place for NFL news, game highlights and everything that excites you about American Football.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

With rules favouring the offenses so heavily in the NFL, I believe that the intentional grounding penalty should come with an additional loss of down.

Meaning say it’s 3rd and 10, QB doesn’t get out of pocket, ball doesn’t get to line of drum mags, no receiver etc etc and he throws it away, i think it should be a dead spot foul, but the ball is now turned over to the opposing team. The 4th down should be nullified.

I think the defense should be rewarded for great coverage with additional pressure.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Derrick_Henry_Cock@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

No guys he's onto something, there should be a firing squad with drum mags that shoot and kill you if you commit intentional grounding.

[–] XJ--0461@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

No, that's dumb.

It should simply be changed so that it counts as intentional grounding even outside the pocket.

Too many QBs scramble outside the pocket, face an imminent loss of yards, then just chuck it so far over heads and out of bounds. It's ridiculous. Why is this allowed?

[–] Cormoe123@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

If they got the ball and threw it out the sideline instead of spiking it would it still be 2 downs?

[–] The_Big_Daddy@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I support this so a player can intentionally ground it on 3rd or 4th down to trigger 5th or 6th down.

[–] loosehead1@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Something a little more subtle I’ve thought would be interesting was if the quarterback had to land the ball in the field of play on a throwaway.

[–] HectorReinTharja@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

They do get rewarded… with what amounts to a sack… which usually was “about” to happen had the Qb not thrown the ball away…

[–] Venator850@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

What? That's a stupid change.

[–] ajh6w@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

...what?

Like, the loss of down is to "replace" the sack that was lost by the grounding.

I dont even understand how losing an entirely unrelated down makes sense...

[–] Art-RJS@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Offenses are struggling enough as it is

[–] monstertweety@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Speaking of which, why isn't intentional grounding a spot foul

[–] draculasbitch@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

If you don’t want to see the glue for most teams go down with injuries then you should want to see intentional grounding eliminated. To balance that out allow defense contact ONCE within ten yards from the line of scrimmage and make PI a 15 yard penalty instead of the spot of foul.

[–] billy8988@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah that's gonna be a no for me dog.

[–] PicklePanther9000@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I disagree, but i support adding a 5 yard penalty from the spot of the foul to make it worse than taking the sack

[–] Any_Consequence_9174@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Rule change proposal: every time the Eagles do the tush push, one of their linemen is imprisoned for a minimum of five years. Kelce first. This will promote parity or something

[–] gustriandos@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I think that’s a bit extreme but it is weird that there’s really no downside to it

[–] HeyNoThanksPal@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Let’s not give the refs more ammo to nuke games on a whim.

[–] HeyNoThanksPal@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I feel like this gives Refs too much of an ability to influence the game.

[–] ConstantineMonroe@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

This is a terrible idea. The point of the grounding penalty is to turn intentional grounding into a sac. Loss of down and spot of the foul, it’s basically a sack. Why on earth would you lose an additional down? There is no other penalty like that, no precedent for a penalty like this, and it’s an awful idea.

[–] noshingsomepods@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I don't support that, but I do support changing intentional grounding to only be negated by a catchable ball like how it is required to trigger DPI. If you're being pressured and dirt a ball at the feet yards away from a blocking RB or TE, that should be treated as a sack. Force more actual plays when the defense wins at the LoS, will lead to more turnovers and excitement.

[–] chuffmeee@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Sounds great, while we're at it we should make all Packers-Bears games end in orgies. Penalty if no orgy is waterboy has to be the interim HC for a week.

[–] spudmaster84@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Worst idea of all time

[–] MATbutmaybeAMT@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Even if the overall logic of it being THAT punishing made sense, which I choose not to argue with or against you on that point, I would still NEVER advocate for making a penalty that has been proven to be hella subjectively enforced... be more punishing. If this was like offsides which is much more often called consistently and correctly that would be one thing, but a penalty that on a WEEKLY basis I can find two instances of it being called differently based on distance to the "intended target"... no shot.

[–] ianoble@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Remove intentionally grounding and loosen up the ability to hit the quarterback. Borderline roughing passers should go to the defense, not the offense.

[–] Barqck@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I’m so sorry r/NFL I promise not all Lions fans are as stupid as OP

A lot of us are, but not all of them

[–] loneliness_sucks_D@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

some defensive penalties are automatic 1st downs, it only makes sense to make some offensive penalties automatic 4th downs

[–] Fuckatron7000@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

The whole point of intentional grounding is it grants the defense a sack they had earned but for the illegal pass. A sack doesn’t cause the loss of an extra down.

Intentional grounding is essentially the photo negative of defensive pass interference. They both grant the non-offending team the high-value outcome that likely would have happened without the cheating.

[–] AutomateAway@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

spot of the foul and losing the down is penalty enough imo, basically like taking a sack at the spot of the throw