If a quarterback thinks he’s about to be sacked, what is his incentive to not ground the ball? If they throw the flag, the result is the same as the sack would have been. If they don’t call it, the offense gets the ball back at the original line of scrimage. Why should the QB take the sack? If he grounds it, there’s at least a chance that the defense will get charged with a late hit.
Am I missing something?
That’s exactly why it’s not allowed. The rules are so that the QB can’t just dump the football in some random direction in order for his team to not lose ground. There has to be an elible reciver in the general vicinity where the ball was lobbed. (Off the top of my head, I can’t remember whether college football has a similar rule.)
He really does not have any incentive not to from what I can tell.
Hence the reason for the penalty. It keeps the QB from throwing away the ball when he’s about to be sacked, or at least keeps that from having any effect.
For example, a QB is still in the tackle box, but 10 yards behind the line. If he gets sacked, it is a 10 yard loss. If he intentionally gounds, same loss. However, without the rule, he gets no loss if he throws the ball. There’s no reason for him not to try, but if he gets caught, he loses the yards. (Of course rules vary depending on which level of football you’re talking about.)
I understand the reasoning behind the rule, it just doesn’t seem like a penalty. If they added 5 yards to the point from where he grounded it, that would be a penalty.
There is a penalty assessed from the point where the QB threw the ball along with the loss of down. For example if a QB was going to take a 5 yard sack on first down but instead illegally threw it away. If he had taken the sack it would have been 2nd and 15 but if he illegally throws it away it is 2nd and 20.
Of course, there is always the risk that there might be an unsighted defensive player in the supposed empty area that the quarterback throws the ball towards. Very often interceptions like these are returned easily for a touchdown. Also, the motion of throwing the ball also puts the ball in a more vunerable position, opening up the risk of a fumble. Thus, unless the situation is truly desparate, the safest course is to wrap up the ball and take the sack.
I didn’t know about the 10 yard rule. So, if he’s beyond 10 yards behind the LOS, is there any reason not to ground it?
College football’s intentional grounding rule is about the same as the NFL’s except that the penalty is always to have the ball placed at the spot of the pass.
In high school, they add five yards beyond where the pass was thrown from.
Yes if he is beyond 10 yards behind the LOS the team is assessed a 10 yard penalty from the spot he threw it. If he were going to take a 15 yard sack on first down but threw it away illegally it would be 2nd and 35 instead of 2nd and 25.
Here’s the rule again:
Basically, the rule is if you are called for intentional grounding and you are 8 yards behind the line of scrimmage, then you lose 10 yards and a loss of down. If you are 15 yards behind the line of scrimmage, you lose 15 yards.
It’s a 10-yard minimum unless it’s a safety. But the penalty is enforced from the previous spot.
That’s not the way I read your previous quote of the rules.
So with your scenario, it would be 2nd and 25, right? And once again, I don’t see any reason not to ground it (from a penalty perspective). Of course, there is always the threat of an interception.
On preview, I think I’m agreeing (ruleswise) with Bob T.
The intentional grounding rule used to be more punitive. There was no exception for being outside the pocket and just chucking the ball into the seats, which is legal if the pass crosses the line of scrimmage.
The rule was made less punitive to create an incentive for grounding the ball so a QB could avoid getting clobbered by defensive linemen. Or perhaps less of a disincentive.
Oddly enough, that used to be the rule in college football. A couple of years ago, they changed it to the spot of the foul. The philosophy behind the new rule appears to be that you don’t so much need to be punished for intentional grounding as prevented from profiting by it.