the QB was NOT outside the Tackle Box, and the intent of the throw was to avoid the sack that is grounding, the MAC office confirms this was a correct call, the spot was the error here.

When you watch the video Burke linked, you see the line judge looking back to where the throw occurred. Dovell was running towards him but was probably out of his line of sight. If he had been looking down the line, he would have seen Dovell.

But the ball was so far out of bounds it wasn't like T^2 was making an attempt to throw him the ball. I've seen closer throws be flagged, and I've seen more distant throws go un-flagged. That part of the call doesn't bother me horribly, except to the extent once they realized how bad they botched the call on the safety, if the line judge had been looking down the line and seen Dovell, he could have said in a conference that there was a receiver in the area and the flag could have been picked up. It would have given us 20 yards of field position we didn't deserve, but that's more fair than giving Buffalo 2 points and the ball at midfield.

I don't think anyone is disputing the grounding call. They are just saying that Billy was wrong in saying that it had to get to the LOS. They are saying that, instead, when a pass doesn't get to the LOS, there needs to be a receiver in the area. The latter is obviously correct or else every incomplete screen pass would be grounding. Billy seems to have backed off his original claim, though.

Let's just all agree that this would not have happened if Toronto Mayor Rob Ford (aka Chris Farley) was the QB.

Sorry I do not take 20 minutes to type out complete post in my day. And there is no attempt at deflection, one thing that needs to happen in that situation was the ball needed to make the LOS, it did not, it was IG for that reason. Move on! I asked you to show me how this is not a requirement for IG, yet you go in other directions, that is as you'd say deflection!

As for you saying I'm changing things, I am not, the play in question had to have the ball reach the LOS, it did not! Every situation there has different variables, and I was not speaking to "ifs" and "buts" but the actual event. No need to speculate, it's just the facts of the play.

OK, so, I accept that you aren't changing things. You continue to claim that the ball had to reach the LOS, and that even if an eligible receiver had been close to the play, it would still have been grounding because the ball did not reach the LOS. 

I continue to agree with mf, and believe you are wrong, and that if an eligible receiver had been near the ball, it would not have been grounding, despite whether the ball reached the LOS or not.

The tackle box does not move - it is the area between where the tackles started.

It really isn't all that complicated. If the QB is in the tackle box, he has to throw it to a receiver. If he leaves the tackle box by running to one side or the other, he can can still throw it away legally by throwing it to a receiver, but he has an additional option of throwing it away so that it crosses the line of scrimmage. In this case, I think TT was outside the tackle box, since he was on the other hashmark, so he had two ways it would not have been grounding - if it had been close to a receiver, or, if it had crossed the line of scrimmage. Dovell was coming back, but didn't get close enough to it, and it didn't make it to the line of scrimmage. Thus it didn't meet either exception.

Billy actually stated it right in his first post:


but then muddies the water by leaving out the option of it being close to a receiver:


and then says TT wasn't outside the tackle box, which I believe he was:

Note - if Billy is right that TT wasn't outside the tackle box, it wouldn't have mattered if it crossed the line of scrimmage - it would have had to be close to a receiver. In his earlier posts, Billy implied that it did matter if it crossed the LOS, so those posts are inconsistent with this one.

Then, to muddy the water further, after posting a correct version of the rule:


in the same post reverts back to an incorrect version:


If TT is still inside the tackle box, throwing to or beyond the neutral zone is not sufficient - it must be to a receiver. If he is outside the tackle box, it can be either to a receiver, or it can cross the LOS.

That's the difference between Buffalo and the rest of the MAC East; nobody else has a legitimate 1st to 3rd round NFL draft pick.  Someone mentioned that he's a man playing among boys, and it sure showed against us.

NO I am NOT!!!!  I have said a few times, certain things must be met for Grounding, and in this case the ball had to make the LOS because there was NO reciever near him.  If there was a reciever at or behind the LOS that would have been a NO foul (they took out the part that there has to be a reasonable ability to catch the pass).  You are playing a game of "if's" on that play, I am not, I am playing it as it actually happened.  The call was made because there was no receiver in the area behind the LOS.

Actually, no, you didn't say this, and that's the problem.  What you say here is what mf said to correct what you said, not what you said.

Yes, and that is what I've said!!!!!  This was IG because the ball did not pass the LOS, and there was no receiver in the area, if there was one in the area behind the LOS (I.E. coming back to the ball or a screen set up).  But there was not.  Not trying to play "if's and butt's", just the facts of the play. 

This is NOT an incorrect version, This still meets the definition of a situation that can lead to IG.   

From an established and credible referee resource:

There’s another element to intentional grounding which is absent from most other violations: You have to get inside a player’s mind to determine what his intentions are. That’s a chancy proposition because sometimes, even though his motives are pretty clear, his actions really can’t be construed as an infraction.


At the end of the day, this comes down to one simple thing.  The play was an IG infraction, plain and simple.  Gripe about the spot of the foul (right-fully so), but the penalty was legit all the way around.