Check raise is by no means a dick move. It’s a perfectly valid strategy
I learned this when I was about 11 playing at home, I was dealt a monster hand and bet big and everyone folded. From then on whenever I have been dealt a monster hand, I slow play to get someone else to bet and then I can raise or not and try to keep them playing.
Right. Betting strategy is half of knowing how to play poker.
In one-on-one sports like tennis, calling an unnecessary medical timeout to break the opponent’s momentum when they are making a comeback.
Walking around the bases after a home run.
Rushing the victory formation in the NFL.
Also, calling timeout when the other team has a certain victory.
For example, at the end of Super Bowl 54, the Chiefs took possession of the ball with 57 seconds left, leading 31-20.
First down, Mahomes took a knee. Niners called their second timeout.
53 seconds left, second down, Mahomes took a knee. Niners called their 3rd timeout.
51 seconds left, third down, Mahomes took a knee. The clock ran down to 5 seconds, whereupon KC called a timeout.
Fourth down, Mahomes threw a deep pass to nobody, which ran out the clock.
Niners had absolutely no chance to win or even tie the game. There should have been two kneel downs, which would have run out the clock.
I don’t remember watching that, but I assume Mahomes threw the ball as high as he could to burn off the last few seconds. I might include that in this thread as something that’s technically legal, but a bit jerkish. It sounds like it didn’t affect the outcome in this case, but would it be a jerk move if it did?
John Harbaugh exploited a similar loophole a couple times. With a few seconds left, the Ravens lined up to punt. After the snap, all the rushers were held, and even tackled, so so no one could get close to the punter for as long as possible. The punter just held the ball for the last 11 seconds of the game and stepped out of the end zone. They deliberately gave up a safety, but still won the game, and the blatant holding penalties were irrelevant.
An NFL Team Once Held Everyone on Purpose to Win. It Worked. - FanBuzz.
That strategy was legal at the time, but not anymore. I’m not sure how the rule against it is written. Still, devising a play just to burn as much time as possible, and not really try to advance the game, seems kinda dickish.
That’s exactly what he did, but you think that’s a bit jerkish? It ended the game and prevented the Niners from getting their hands on the ball.
If a punter, as in your example, runs around in the end zone until the game clock runs out and then runs out of bounds as the game ends, you think that’s kinda dickish? Really? I think that the vast majority of football fans would consider that a smart play.
As long as the blockers aren’t holding the defenders, that’s fine.
Throwing a high pass just to burn a few seconds strikes me as akin to intentional grounding. You’re not really trying to complete the pass; you’re taking advantage of what happens during an incomplete pass. If you do it too obviously, you’ll draw a penalty. It still happens, you just can’t be too blatant about it.
Suppose Mahomes had done that on that on the final play; sprint 40 or 50 yards back to stay away from the defenders, then throw the ball into the turf at his feet. It’s a penalty, but the clock hits 0, so none of it matters. Would you consider that jerkish?
The game can’t end on a penalty so there would be another play
Yeah, that’s a bit of a jerk move. But I don’t think those two situations are really comparable. If you go look at the replay of the last play from SB 54, you’ll notice that there’s a receiver within about 5 yards of the ball when it hits the ground. While the play was certainly designed to run out the clock, at least it looked like it was legit. Here is a link; the last play starts at about the 2:05:00 mark.
In the NFL, the game cannot end on a defensive penalty. If a play like @Robot_Arm happens, even though there clearly was intentional grounding, if the game clock has expired, the game is over.
What’s the difference, though? In both cases, the team isn’t really trying to complete the pass. @Railer13 said as much, “…threw a deep pass to nobody”. Isn’t that the spirit of the intentional grounding rule?
What I’m suggesting would be unenforceable. We can’t read the quarterback’s mind and know that he’s deliberately throwing incomplete. All the offense has to do is run a token receiver downfield, then throw a high, arcing pass out-of-bounds somewhere near him. It’s within the letter of the rules, but somewhat jerkish.
The spike at the end would only kill a fraction of a second. It’s the running 50 yards backward that would actually kill all the time, and there’s no penalty for that. That is a tactic that is used sometimes. Of course if you don’t want your opponent to do that, don’t let him have the lead and the ball that late in the game.
Yes, I said that. But I ask you to actually look at the play, in the link I provided. You will find that the Chiefs ran
And, no, it’s not jerkish at all.
What, in your opinion, should the Chiefs have done? 4th and 26 on their own 20, with 5 seconds to play in the Super Bowl, leading by 11. Are you actually suggesting that they should have punted the ball? Or have their punter run backwards through the end zone?
The spirit of the intentional grounding rule is that a team shouldn’t be rewarded for deliberately throwing an incomplete pass. But you can’t legislate intent, so the letter of the law says there has to be a receiver somewhere near where the ball lands.
They should have done exactly what they did. They played within the letter of the rules, and won the game. I just think it’s a bit of a jerkish move, as well. Exactly what this thread is about.
Do you think Mahomes had any intent to complete that pass, or did he throw it out-of-bounds on purpose?
Of course he had no intention of completing the pass.
I guess I don’t understand your reasoning. The Chiefs did exactly what you think is the correct move to win the game, but yet you think it’s a bit jerkish. Is the quarterback taking a knee also a bit jerkish?
I don’t know that I can explain it any better. It’s the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law regarding intentional grounding.
But every quarterback does this every game. If nobody is open they throw it away in the general vicinity of a receiver, typically over their head out of bounds. It’s a reach to classify that as jerkish.
Also, if they get outside the pocket all they have to do is throw it to the line of scrimmage and they don’t even need a receiver in the area.
Sure, but they don’t call it that way intentionally in the huddle. They were hoping to complete a pass, saw that they couldn’t, and then threw the ball away in order to minimize the damage. It’s still somewhat against the spirit of the grounding rule. And there is some downside for the offensive team; the incomplete pass costs them a down.
Compare that the Mahomes play to end the Super Bowl. It was (we assume) never intended to be a complete pass, and loss of a down costs them nothing because the clock ran out.
I disagree with this part pretty strongly – I think it’s exactly what the rule intends you to do – but I do see the distinction you’re making. You don’t intentionally call an incomplete pass in the huddle. Fair enough.
The spirit of the intentional grounding rule is that a quarterback shouldn’t be allowed to avoid a sack by deliberately throwing an incomplete pass.
There is no provision in the rules to add time to the clock as a result of any action other than the officials letting the clock run incorrectly. As there are rules to run off time in response to a penalty, I think this is a deliberate choice.
This play is functionally identical to kneeling, a deliberately failed play, called in the huddle as a failed play, it just burns off a few more seconds.