Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump
Do you think that if he's not interfered with Gronk could have broken up the interception? And do you think that's irrelevant? It would be a strange rule that allowed the defense to take out a receiver to make an interception easier. (Though I'm just an interloper from another board and maybe the rule really is that strange).
|
To be completely honest, this aspect of the equation, I believe, is not well defined. Someone brought that up earlier and it got me thinking.
I fully agree that the existence of the interceptor (even if he simply bats the ball away) making a play completely in front of the receiver warrants waiving off the interference penalty.
However - it does make for an interesting scenario that you've alluded to, and that I'm not sure what the ruling SHOULD be, much less what it WOULD be.
If the game was not over at this moment - and the officials got together and agreed that the ball was uncatchable by the receiver - BUT the receiver was conceivably close enough to prevent the defender from actually catching the ball ... what's the ruling. MUCH tougher decision there.
That said... I honestly am flabbergasted that ANYONE who is an official is arguing about this call. Other than NE sympathizers, there's no basis for it. I don't think it's even remotely possible that the receiver is able to completely stop his forward momentum and reverse his path and then make up 2 yards within the POINT THREE FOUR SECONDS that elapsed between the first conceivable instant of interference and the instant the ball was caught.
Think about it... the fastest players in the world run a 4.00 40. That's 10 yards in one second, at full speed. So even at full speed TOWARD the ball, it takes .2 seconds to go 2 yards. He was moving AWAY from the ball. Someone expects him to stop, reverse, and go those 2 yards AND go around the defender AND catch the ball. Impossible. Zero point zero zero zero, people.