Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kingerock
the thing that gets me is that if they intended to throw it there was no eligible receiver anywhere close and it should be a grounding penalty. The rule is dumb to me because it's win-win for the QB and lose-lose for the defense.
|
That's what I was wondering why no grounding was called then? Somehow, I bet the explaination we would get is "his INTENT" was not to avoid a sack". Ironic that now intent comes into play.