Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
I don't have an issue with the philosophy when the ball is intercepted at a point the receiver couldn't have reached absent the interference.
In this case though, it's the interference that prevents the receiver from reaching the point of the interception which is what allows the interception.
It's not interference because it was intercepted but it was intercepted because there was interference.
|
The interference did not aid in the interception at all - which is the entire point here - the interceptor and the interferor are two different people and despite some claims that Gronk is either a) superhuman; b) able to go through people; or c) has a portable transporter, there is ZERO chance Gronk catches this ball if he's not interfered with. If you don't see that, there's no getting you to see it. The point, then, is moot.