ChiefsPlanet - Football Ron Torbort should be fired

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Ron Torbort should be fired (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=318636)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties (Post 13869528)

So you are willfully ignorant of the fact that QB pressure must exist for such a call.

Huh! Amazing.

You must be willfully ignorant that BEFORE WE GET TO NOT HAVING PRESSURE, the QB :

1. HAS TO BE UNDER CENTER

AND

2. MUST SPIKE TO STOP THE CLOCK

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99 (Post 13869537)

Yes it was absolutely intentional grounding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99 (Post 13869537)

Lol football zebra's uses Clay's tweet. Clay have you seen this? http://www.footballzebras.com/2018/1...ek-9-liveblog/

https://24liveblog.tradingfront.cn/e...506_889341.jpg

Even though the Chiefs appear to be confused, there is really no relief from the grounding rules. It is also a 10-second runoff, which the Chiefs countered with a timeout. The fact that this specific situation is not addressed does not give an opening for interpretation; the fact that the clock was not running prior to the snap is the guiding factor in the rule.

Yeah that's pretty clear. I guess this Casebook isn't really available online?

Now if this is real, that is clear writing stating where they got their ruling and I would say they were correct. A provision should be included on the rules site, but if this is something that NFL teams are provided then this was handled correctly.

But wait. Mahomes wasn't attempting to take time off the clock.

What does 8.91 say? That seems to be more relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99 (Post 13869539)

See my post above. There is something called a Casebook - which I have never seen online. Just the abridged rulebook they release for fans.

I know I've seen stuff like that (cases with associated rulings) before, but no clue if they make it easy to find.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabblerouser (Post 13869548)

You must be willfully ignorant that BEFORE WE GET TO NOT HAVING PRESSURE, the QB :

1. HAS TO BE UNDER CENTER

AND

2. MUST SPIKE TO STOP THE CLOCK

That's wrong, actually.

The very FIRST stipulation for intentional grounding is QB pressure.

It's the first sentence!!!! HA!!!

HA!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties (Post 13869522)

What the **** is this even from?

It's not in the goddamn official rulebook site.

It is. The source I found it from had the incorrect ruling number.

It is actually A.R. 8.97

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...ttkeorBIEN0ueL

It seems that the call is correct, but doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the intent of the rule

NOT intentional grounding. There's virtually no difference between out of bounds and what Mahomes did.

Quote:

A.R. 8.29 Second-and-10 on B20. Quarterback deliberately throws the ball out of bounds to stop the game clock.

Ruling: The pass was not thrown away to prevent loss of yardage. A’s ball third-and-10 on B20.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties (Post 13869545)

Well, that's clear then.

The NFL should put the the ****ing CASEBOOK online, then.

****ing jackholes.

ROFL

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabblerouser (Post 13869580)

ROFL

**** off

you're still wrong, as per the other ruling I just cited

you ain't been citing shit this whole thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupDock (Post 13869564)

It is. The source I found it from had the incorrect ruling number.

It is actually A.R. 8.97

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...ttkeorBIEN0ueL

That link only goes up to 8.76 for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties (Post 13869563)

That's wrong, actually.

The very FIRST stipulation for intentional grounding is QB pressure.

It's the first sentence!!!! HA!!!

HA!!!!

Even when you're proven wrong, you still have to be right in your own mind.

I don't give a **** what you think, Claynus. It's ****ing intentional grounding, the 'lack of QB pressure' has **** ALL bearing on the rule as it was enforced in this situation, but you keep clinging to your delusions.

Everyone else in this thread now knows that it was the correct call, and that Reid and Mahomes ****ed up.

Cry yourself to sleep over it, I'm gonna go do something else now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties (Post 13869578)

NOT intentional grounding. There's virtually no difference between out of bounds and what Mahomes did.

ROFL

I found one from 2017. https://nflcommunications.com/Docume...20Rulebook.pdf

Quote:

A.R. 8.87 INTENTIONAL GROUNDING—SPIKE TO CONSUME TIME
First-and-10 on B30. The game clock is stopped with six seconds left in the first half. QBA1 takes the snap and
immediately spikes the ball into the ground to take one second off the clock so that a field-goal attempt will run out
the clock.
Ruling: Half over. Intentional grounding and a 10-second runoff. A QB can only spike the ball to stop a running game
clock. An attempt to take time off the clock is intentional grounding.

I guess the numbers change every year.

But the thing is they have other places where the refs are supposed to make a judgement in call in the QBs intentions - specifically for intentional grounding. So here it's clear the QB is doing it to burn of more time so a FG attempt would run out the clock. Which clearly is not what the Chiefs were doing. I can easily see how the refs could interpret it a different way and not call a penalty on KC.

I see why they made the rule though. They don't want a team spiking it 3 times to burn 3 seconds off the clock before a game-ending FG attempt. That would be annoying and taking advantage of the spike rule. But again - clearly not what the Chiefs were doing.

The average fan has no idea how complicated the rules really are. I was discussing this play during the game and my casual fan cousin was looking at me like I was speaking Swahiii.