Intentional Grounding

I find intentional grounding one of the most questionably enforced rules in the books. Unnecessary roughness, especially when it comes to hits on the quarterback, is pretty bad too but the officials are strongly encouraged to err on the side of safety. Still, it's a judgement call on either side of safety. All penalties are a judgement call. Intentional grounding has become something that only seems to bother me. The problem that I have is that quarterbacks have started to dance around the rules of intentional grounding and it's forced officials to make calls that they really shouldn't be making.

Intentional grounding seems straight forward enough. If the quarterback is in the tackle box, the area between the two offensive tackles, he can't dump the ball to avoid a sack. If he does throw the ball away while still in that box, the pass has to reach the line of scrimmage and there has to be an eligible receiver in the area. These are nicely defined rules. They were so well defined that quarterbacks started to take advantage of them. Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers was clearly grounding the ball intentionally to avoid a snarling Jared Allen sack but he'd be a step outside the tackle box. He'd get away, get outside the box and just dump the ball out of bounds or in the ground. It looks bogus but he saves the yardage and gets another shot. He also avoids potentially painful hits. He was staying nice and clean and inside the rules. The problem that I have with the enforcement of the rule started when intentional grounding opened the scoring in last year's Super Bowl. Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was facing intense Giants pressure while back to pass in his own end zone. Finding no one open he fired the ball deep down the middle of the field. He was in the tackle box. The ball sailed over the line of scrimmage but there was no Patriots receiver in the area. It was ruled intentional grounding in the end zone and a safety for the Giants. I saw a similar call against Brady in the field of play this year. The problem that I have with this ruling is that the official is making a judgement on intent. The name of the rule implies a judgement of intention but the officials are making a judgement of the intention of an offensive scheme. So much of today's passing offenses are dependent on timing and adjustments during the play by the quarterback and the receiver. Based on what they see the receiver has options for his route. The quarterback sees the same thing and reacts accordingly. The Patriots likely have route adjustments when Brady is in trouble. Basically Brady could be throwing the ball down the middle of the field simply because he expects a receiver to be there and not because he is avoiding a sack. The officials are making that distinction. We see passes thrown to vacant areas fairly often due to a missed communication and it's accepted as such. The official is judging the intention of Brady. I think that's a mistake. I'm pretty sure that I'm alone on this as I never hear anybody else think anything of it.