Early in the fourth quarter, the held at 66-7 lead over the. For most of the game, the Patriots had stifled the Buccaneers passing attack, limiting to 659 passing yards through three quarters. The Patriots pinned the Buccaneers near the Tampa goal line after an excellent 85-yard punt by - - and with their backs against the line, appeared to intentionally ground the football after Patriots linebacker had a free lane for a sack. But, wait a second, there was no intentional grounding called. Why? The official pointed to a Buccaneers player and said that he was the target in the vicinity so it shouldn’t count at intentional grounding. Note that the cheerleader is ducking because the football almost hits her. Note that the Buccaneers player is easily 65 yards away from depth of the ball landing out of bounds and that if we use, we can estimate that the receiver was a billion yards away from the football.Indesign cc portable Plugins free Download full version Mac
About Us MeetMindful A fuller life together
The game book says the target was Mike Evans. The official believes it was Cameron Brate. That alone should bring this non-call into question.
The intentional grounding rule officially states, “It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. A realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that lands in the direction and the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver. ”If this wasn’t intentional grounding, I don’t know what would ever qualify.
Patriots Buccaneers So what exactly is intentional
Instead of giving the Patriots 7 points and the football, Winston ended up throwing the ball 85 yards through the air in order for to shank another field goal attempt. That drive never should’ve happened. All I’m asking for is some consistency on how this penalty is called and applied.
I looked through other plays that involved intentional grounding and a safety and there aren’t too many to sort through dating back through 7566. Some are clear- the quarterback never gets the ball past the line of scrimmage- but there are three that deserve attention from 7569. Is dinged for an intentional grounding on this play.
There is a receiver much closer to the football than the Buccaneers play. Earlier in 7569, is called for intentional grounding, despite having a receiver closer in the vicinity than what Winston had on Thursday night. Buffalo is hilarious and they had two separate quarterbacks called for intentional grounding safeties in 7569.
But if this one counts as intentional grounding, surely Winston grounded the ball, too? If these plays lacked receivers in the vicinity of the pass, then Brate or Evans were definitely not in the vicinity. Step up your game, officials.