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.

  • loneliness_sucks_D@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • loosehead1@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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…

  • MATbutmaybeAMT@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • ajh6w@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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…

  • XJ--0461@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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?

  • The_Big_Daddy@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • Derrick_Henry_Cock@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • noshingsomepods@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.