My thought exactly.
I was shocked they picked the flag up. I think without the contact Gronk has a shot at the ball, albeit a small one. Once he is denied that opportunity illegally that is DPI.
But like MD said, this is in fact a judgement call. So on this play half of us would throw, half of us wouldn't. That's just the nature of the game and on Monday it worked against New England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
Gee, you think maybe he seemed to make no effort because the opponent holding him was in his face at that moment so he couldn't see the ball?
This is about as textbook a case of pass interference as you could illustrate. One player has turned around to play the ball while the opponent has his back to the ball and wraps him up. The ball comes down in a place where you can't say the player facing the ball could not have gotten his hands to. The BJ is about as well placed as I could imagine to see not only the act of interference but also the path of the ball; I don't see why anybody thinks he'd need help to make that judgment. And just in case you've never seen one player beat two opponents to the ball on a play like that, I'll tell you it happens.
For those of you saying A87 was already going backward when he was contacted, suppose he had the ball when he was tackled in the field of play like that. Where would you spot the ball? I bet you wouldn't've assumed all that backward momentum was his own in that case.
And as to the long-haired player who caught the ball, I could see A87 possibly getting shoulder to shoulder with him and having a shot at the ball had the other player not interfered with his opp'ty. "Uncatchable" means "impossible to catch", and how can you say that was impossible? Of course if the ball were intercepted or deflected a sufficient distance in front of the interfered-with player to have made it impossible for him to get to in time, that's one way a pass could be uncatchable, but the time and distance in this case are not like that.
|