Ultimately, this is the point of contention. I don't think the pass was underthrown. Had Gronk not been interfered with, I believe he would have been at the point of interception at the time of interception. (And in fact, we have a clip from a TV show that shows the physics of the matter which confirm this opinion.)

I understand ignoring interference when the ball is caught 10 yards in front of the interference. I don't agree with ignoring interference that occurs in the immediate vicinity of a catch that allows a second defender an uncontested interception.

As I said before, if they got this right by interpretation, the interpretation is unfair.

I hope you're not suggesting that he would have ended up in the same spot absent contact.

Exactly right.

Seriously? They happened about 7 yards apart.

Try watching the play. You'll sound less ridiculous that way.

The point where Gronkowski is initially interfered with and the point where the ball is intercepted are maybe two yards apart.

That's where the interference ended (and where the hard to miss interference happened). The important interference, the hand pushing on the shoulder, starts quite close to the point of interception.

7 yards is an exaggeration... but 2 yards is about equally as far off.

The spot where the intercepting defender and Gronk pass each other is about 3 yards from where the ball was caught. But the interference doesn't occur until at least a full step and a half later. If you're calling this 2 yards, then I believe you are determining interference on this play FAR earlier than it actually happened. At 2 yards, at most both players are playing handsies (no competent official would call interference on either the receiver swatting the defender's hands or the defender swatting the receiver's - at least not this far before the ball arrived). Gronk takes another step (now 3 1/2 yards from where the ball is eventually caught), and then during the next step as he seems to attempt to slow down (Rut's protestations aside) is when the defender (who failed to slow down) runs into him, begins the interference, and makes it worse by bringing his arms down to pin Gronk's arms. The interference begins 4-5 yards behind where the ball is actually caught - BOTH players took 2 steps in opposite directions before that happened.

That's impossible b/c the ball wasn't even thrown in a path towards Gronk. Not only was it underthrown, but also to the left of Gronk by a couple yards. And the defender didn't actually grab Gronk until they were already engaged for a couple of yards. I don't think merely touching someone qualifies as pass interference.

And didn't the officials on field confer and JUDGE that the interception and interception occurred simultaneously? You have one official looking at one thing, another looking at something else. Then they have to get together and put the picture together. Same as in basketball when you have a foul off-ball on the offense and the officials have to determine if the foul occurred before or after the shot was released.

The interference that matters happens as the intercepting player approaches Gronk. It's the shove to the shoulder that off-balances Gronk. The wrap-up is entirely immaterial, the damage was already done.

That was the officials on-field interpretation, which is clearly disproved on video.

The interference started before the grab. It happened immediately when Gronkowski was shoved.

So what? Philosophies are important. Do you want to see a holding flag on every play?

So what should the officials have done differently based on the information they had at the time?

I've watched the video a few times, not seeing the shove you are referencing. I see a grab a split second (in slow motion, not real speed) before the interception. I also see Gronk going one direction and he clearly would not have made it back to the ball even with no defender. As someone who is 6'5"/240lbs himself, I can tell you that the laws of inertia especially apply to men of my size.

What does that have to do with anything?

What was disproved? You have little understanding of the rule and that is obvious. So what was disproved by the video? That Gronk never made an attempt back to the ball? Because that is the biggest part of this situation if you ask me.

Peace

Because if you called a foul every time someone wrapped their arms around an opponent, you would not have a play without a penalty. You certainly would have a hold on every single running play, because someone hands are outside of the frame for some period of time and are struggling at some point to get away. But like that part of the game, we consider it a foul when their is clear restriction and the opponent is not just getting beat anymore. And that is where the term, "Stronger legs" comes from. It is clear by the feet of both Gronk and the Panther LB that they were not struggling to move in any direction.

Peace