I haven't been in this discussion at all; just reading it. I was poking fun at the absolutist and hyperbolic terms sports fans use to express their opinions. Yours was far from the only such post in this thread; it was just the last one.

Except for two things:

1) I'm a referee (although not an American football referee). (And specifically not a fan of either of these teams. I wasn't even watching the game.)
2) My statement was neither absolutist nor hyperbolic.

For example, I didn't say there was no way he wouldn't have made the catch. I said he would have easily had a play, that is, an opportunity to make a catch. If you had read the whole thread, you'd have seen that I give him no more than 1 chance in 5 of actually making the catch. That's hardly absolutist or hyperbolic.

Whatever you want to say. It would not be hyperbolic to say that a referee could easily have seen a possibility of a play, but given that there were 2 defenders between him and the ball (assuming no interference, there would have been 2), to say making the play itself would be easy... Even for Gronk, it wouldn't have been easy. Possible, with Gronk-like effort, but not easy. Hence, my comment. (Intended to be humorous, not argumentative...)

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.

Apparently they've changed the rule since 2009:

Bill Belichick Shows Patriots Lions-Browns Play From 2009 - Business Insider

I think we're working with two different definitions of play. By play, I mean a chance to catch the ball. You appear to mean actually catching the ball.

Absent interference, I think Gronk as a small chance at making the catch. I think he has a much larger chance of preventing the interception. Had time not expired, wouldn't that have mattered as well?

What if A & B were reversed here. In that case wouldn't it have been OPI? (Serious question. I have no idea.)

You may be right. I disagree, but I don't think it matters. Unless I'm mistaken (which is ALWAYS a possibility), the judgment is removed on this since the ball was intercepted before it made it to Gronk's location.

Not by rule, but by the guidelines the NFL referees are given.

Look at the video in that link on my last post at the end of Page 7. Either they changed the guidelines or the crew back then didn't get the memo.

The Lions receiver is interfered with in the back of the endzone while another Browns defender intercepts the pass at the front of the endzone, short of where the interference happened. They called DPI, ran a play with no time on the clock, and Detroit won by one point.

I believe you, but that may well have been the play that prompted a change in the guidelines. Or those guys missed it and got downgraded later. Or any number of things.

Do you really think the NFL deliberately instituted guidelines (which are to be used only in case of doubt as to a ruling) that would overcome considerations of time and distance? And in figuring the time & distance #87 would've had to reach the ball, count from just as the opponent extended his hands to push on his shoulders. Some of you are referring to "front of the end zone" and "back of the end zone", while in reality the contact occurred very close in space to where the ball was intercepted.

And the claim that had he not received that push, #87 would've interfered with that opponent to reach the ball is absurd, because the opponent had his back turned and wasn't trying for the ball.

I don't know about NFL or NCAA, but when has "trying for the ball" been a consideration for PI? The defender is entitled to his position on the field. Even if the defender isn't trying to get to the ball, he cannot be pushed or pulled to get to a pass in flight.

The statement is that he would have had to interfere (OPI) with the defender who made the interception. IOW, legally catching the ball would have been nearly impossible.

His back turned and wasn't trying for the ball? He CAUGHT the ball. Are you watching the same play?

Somewhere there's an old saying, "There are none so blind as those who will not see", can you imagine what that says about those who refuse to even look?

In this context "uncatchable" only comes into play because by philosophy (or maybe rule) a pass intended for an eligible receiver is underthrown and a defender was in a much better position to intercept it. Any discussion of whether Gronk could have come back for it is irrelevant. We have seen several plays like this from the CFO and told to not flag it for DPI. It's also why this would likely be DPI if the other defender isn't there to intercept it. I don't know if this is in the NFL philosophy/rule, but I believe this is exactly how our NCAA supervisors want this called.

The comments Blandino made said the judgement of the officials on the field was the restriction was so close to when the ball was touched by the defender. That has nothing to do with "uncatchable". It's a timing discussion and could be easily argued by those watching the video.

Not the one with the long hair, the one who pushed #87.

That's who that means? Look at their relative position before the interference; I think they each had a plausible line on the ball that didn't go thru the other.

Not a fan of that if that's the case. Just because a defender may have better position doesn't mean he should get a free shot at the ball.

Think of it like the ball being tipped before it gets to the receiver. That contact is ignored as well but it no less prevents the receiver from getting to it. There are lots of gray areas of judgement and a good official limits the gray. This philosophy is assuming the receiver would have a hard time catching the ball that is underthrown and intercepted by someone else.

That seems like you're eliminating the wrong "gray area" so to speak.

The rule is written giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense. In this play, the defender clearly committed a violation, but the flag was picked up because the officials determined the pass to be "clearly uncatchable."

That wasn't the case in reality. Not with the benefit of replay.

It just seems as though with the way the NFL rule is written and basic common sense that you should side with the aggrieved team and not the team doing something they're not supposed to.

How do you know what the rule was written for? PI rules apply to both the offense and defense and if the ball is tipped or uncatchable, it can apply to both sides of the ball.

Peace

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.

I meant it more as a statement on this play. With the way the rule is written, the benefit of the doubt goes to the offensive player on this play.

The defender committed a clear violation on a ball that wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

OK, then why did the NFL not say what you just stated? It was so clear right?

Peace

The NFL didn't contradict anything I said.

I said with the benefit of replay, it wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

All the NFL said was that it was understandable how watching the play full speed could make it seem uncatchable.

Dean Blandino, NFL's vice president of officiating, supports refs' decision - ESPN Boston

Now the logic they used, like I said, doesn't stand up when you have the benefit of replay.

I am very aware of what the NFL said. But they did not say that it was a foul either. And the call is not only based on the ball being uncatchable. There also has to be restriction, which there are categories for calling DPI or OPI in NFL training. I think the catchable part of this is only a small part of this not being called.

Peace

He was initially restricted within two yards of the spot where the ball was picked off as he started to change direction. He was then physically forced to the back of the endzone.

That is your opinion and I certainly disagree. To be restricted you have to do something to show you are restricted. Keep running away form the ball and your legs never change direction or plant is not being restricted. Heck that has nothing to do with being restricted because someone's arms are around or on you. No different than a block and the person being blocked never tries to get away.

Peace

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.

You mean being physically forced to make a complete change of direction doesn't count as a restriction for you?

Gronk is bigger, stronger and faster then the guy that was guarding him. I think if he was restricted, I would see more than what I saw to call a foul. His legs never stopped and you never saw a struggle in his movement in any direction. Then again this is what we are taught all the time at the college level and this was does not fit the categories listed to call DPI. I have seen hundreds of play like this and to call this and the ball not getting there would be considered "too technical" by many.

And you can keep debating this, but that is not going to change my mind. I have been doing this long enough to know why I do or do not call thing. And if I was the BJ in this case, I would be happy I was talked off of this call.

Peace

That has not been true in the past in the NFL. See Detroit vs. Cleveland in 2009.

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).

"Restriction" is a consideration for holding. It doesn't have to be one for interference. What sealed the play as I can see from that video loop is not holding, but the initial push that was given by an opponent to A87 to knock him off balance.

You honestly don't think Gronk could have competed for the ball at all if he had not been interfered with? Gronk would have easily made the spot of the interception had he not been interferred with.

Watch the clip again. He's feet are set to move forward when his shoulders are pushed behind his hips. It doesn't matter how strong or big someone is, they can't move forward with their shoulders behind their hips and that was the defender's action, not Gronks.

Absent that push, Gronk jumps forward for the ball and arrives simultaneously with the intercepting defender.

He doesn't have to be superhuman, go through anyone, or teleport to have a chance, albeit small, to catch the ball.

Actually watching it again, he's got a step on the interceptor before he's fouled.

I don't care how strong you are, once your shoulders are behind your hips while your knees are already somewhat flexed (but not enough to do the limbo) and your feet forward, you're hitting the ground. Look at the video as he receives that shoulder shove and tell me how he could possibly have recovered from it. If his lower body had not already started forward towards the ball, then probably he'd've made the struggle vs. the opponent obvious, but at the time he was hit he had no choice but to fall backward.

It's not like Luke Kuechly is a 6', 195 pound cornerback. He is 6'3" and 235 himself. I don't know how you can consider it a total stretch that he would be able to move impede Gronk if he wanted to.

The only way this "horse" is leaving the glue factory is in plastic bottles.

It seems even "all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't change the harsh reality that sometimes the really close calls go your way, and sometimes they don't, and either way, sometimes you just have to accept the call and move on.

Robert, there are guidelines the NCAA uses that puts PI into about 6 categories. Each category described what constitutes PI and in order to call PI, you the action must fit into such category. I am almost positive that these came from the NFL and their philosophies.

And I looked it up, these categories are in the CCA Manual on page 27. There are 6 categories for DPI. There are 4 categories for OPI. And I know the NFL uses the same guidelines as these have been discussed by the association I work with and there are both NFL officials and NFL evaluators in this group. And one of the NFL evaluators is the person I work for in D3 in my area.

Peace

Just to clarify, do you have DPI on this play if the defender who intercepted it isn't there?

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.

Yes. The ball would have gone much further, and could conceivably have been caught by the receiver before it made it to the ground.

THIS part is simply delusional. At the moment the defender and Gronk are equally close to the ball, there has been no interference. Both defender and receiver take another full step (in opposing directions) before interference is born.

I do not agree with the premise of how you framed this. Gronk was stopping his momentum already, beginning to come back. Only then was he driven back, not by a little DB but by one of the best LBs in the game. The DB then slid under the newly created space. The DB *probably* could get there anyway, but it's not anywhere near impossible to me.

I accept you see it more definitively than many others do, but I thinks it's quite condescending to say that a large number who don't see it that way are lesser officials. We have two former NFL supervisor of officials who would have called DPI, one who wasn't sure but wouldn't have changed it (Mike Periera) and one who wholeheartedly would have called it DPI (Jim Daopoulos). Are you flabbergasted at them too? Are they NE sympathizers?

It was a tough call made in an high-pressure situation. Both interpretations are valid and justifiable. I would hope we could discuss a very close one in a professional way without this kind of hyperbole.

Surely the first clause of that doesn't matter, just because there's no point in preventing the interception after time expires wouldn't change the rules regarding interference. (Even though the defense now values an interception and a breakup equally.)

To me, his opinion is meaningless. His comments that the other officials stuck themselves into the call is factually untrue, so his whole thought process is questionable.

Very likely because the facts are now changed. The philosophy I've been taught (again at the NCAA level but as JRut states likely comes from the NFL) is if a pass is underthrown and a separate player intercepts the ball, the contact behind him is ignored. It's a simple philosophy and applies on this play.

If the pass is not intercepted you have different facts on the play. Since you can now consider the contact the category would be early contact not playing the ball.

Yes because it is probably early contact on the receiver that had a chance to catch the ball. But the ball never got there and at that level the ball must be there to stick with a foul.

Peace

I understand the philosophy, but I don't think it applies on this play.

The intercepting defender and the interference happened almost right next to each other, within a couple yards.

Tough for the ball to get to the receiver when the receiver's being dragged away from the ball.

If the ball is tipped on the way to a receiver, we do not call DPI in those situations. Why is this so hard to understand in this situation?

Peace

Because that's not the same thing.

If you have a receiver and a defender standing next to each other and another defender comes in and tackles the receiver to the ground, do you ignore that action because the original defender now has an easy interception with the receiver on the ground behind him?

It is if the ball never gets there. Again, you keep wanting everyone to take on your logic and philosophy on this type of play. That is not going to happen. As I have said and others have said to you, this is commonly the philosophy at that level. If you do not want to accept that logic, then don't. I just know I would be happy if I made this call and my partners talked me off of this foul. I would also not call this if I saw the entire play. And this play is not that uncommon. There are often interceptions that are made with some kind of contact before the ball gets to the area of the so-called interference. And touching alone is not a foul. Restriction is a foul.

Peace

My example is closer to what actually happened than a mere tipped pass.

This was not called, and I stand by my first feelings on this play. When I saw this play on replay the very first time live while watching the broadcast, I felt it was not a foul. Nothing you have said is changing that position.

Peace

It's not...after he gets that shoulder shove! If you look at the situation just before that contact, it looks very different.

Ah, but the fantasy players don't!

Regardless how far behind/beyond him? Or how much time between? If so, that philosophy materially changes the rule!

No it doesn't. You just do not understand the philosophy. Hardly any rule does not have some kind of philosophy as to how to rule on something. Officials at the higher levels tend to understand that better than guys you work high school. High school officials often do not have the same level of training or scrutiny or accountability.

Peace

I want you guys in the "No DPI" camp on the NE/Carolina play to watch this play starting at the 4:00 mark in the video:

GameDay: Denver Broncos vs. New England Patriots highlights - NFL Videos

The Denver receiver is running a "go" route straight down the field. Talib for NE does hold the receiver, but Manning severely underthrows the ball and there is zero chance the receiver would have caught it. It gets intercepted, but they stick with the holding call.

How is this any different than last week's play? I thought if the ball was underthrown and not catchable by the offensive player and it was intercepted, they "philosophy" was to ignore the defensive penalty. When Talib catches Manning's underthrown pass he is eight yards in front of the receiver who was running the complete opposite direction.

Edit: Go to 5:20 and watch the PI no-call when the Patriots have the ball in OT also. How is that not DPI?

Holding is not subject to the pass being catchable, it doesn't even require the ball to be thrown.

If a hold occurs prior to the ball being thrown, it is a hold. If it is while the ball is in the air, it is pass interference.

I would probably have DPI on this at the level of ball I work. My guess is that they deemed the contact as incidental to the defensive play being made. Not saying I agree with that but it's my best guess.

The first play in question has nothing to do with the play we are discussing in this thread. The play you are showing is a clear hold for a jersey grab that clearly restricts the movement of the receiver to go up field. The legs of the receiver clearly are stopped or altered in order to keep the defender in an advantageous position. And that is why it was called. The Gronk play had no restriction in the movement if you look at his legs. He did not change direction or stopped completely. If no arms were around Gronk, you would not even think to call a foul. That is why that play is not the same as the play last week.

The second play to me is just a miss. Just like there was a miss on an earlier play in that game, it is another miss. That play has nothing to do with we are talking about on any level. I do not know what level you work, but with better athletes there are times when a play happens so fast you are not completely sure and you do not call anything (which most supervisors want). They would rather have you miss a tight play than call something that clearly was not there. Many high school and lower level officials thank every time there is some contact we have to have something. There is contact in football and this was just a close play to rule on. We do not always get them right, it is OK.

Peace

I think it is a miss. Just like it was a miss when they let Brady run all over the field screaming at everyone afterwards.

Agree on both points.

There have NEVER been two plays that are EXACTLY alike in ANY game that has ever been played, much less in different games, in different locations, in different cities, observed by different, extremely competent, officials. A lot of plays may perceived by many as "being similar" but officials understand that each play is unique, as it unflods in front of their eyes.

Precise consistency of play to play, game to game, week to week is an impossibility, why would there be any expectation that judgments regarding what happens during these plays, would be any more consistent than the plays themself?

I didn't say they were ever "exactly" alike. I asked how they are different in regards to the philosophy of "The ball wasn't catchable by the receiver and fell short of its target so we ignore pass interference".

But he eventually does go up field and the ball is thrown nowhere near him.

The contention that Gronk was not restricted at all is not universally shared. Even some officials (Some at very high levels) don't agree with you.

I don't agree with the contention that Gronk was not restricted. I do agree with the contention that it didn't matter, by rule, because of the interception that occurred before the ball got to the DPI location.

The difference is that with holding, being "catchable" isn't a factor like it is with DPI.

With DPI, it must be catchable to be DPI. The guideline from the league to officials is if the ball is intercepted before it reaches the point of the DPI, it wasn't catchable (by rule.) Therefore no DPI. That's no an issue with holding.

You have to prove you were restricted by your movement. Gronk never changed direction or showed a struggle. He kept going in the same direction. If you are truly restricted show me. These guys act when they are barely touched and this big guy who is physical as anyone just keeps moving in the same direction? Again, I need more and so do those at the higher levels. And the play you referenced that receiver clearly showed he was getting held.

Peace

By rule, it doesn't matter. The ball doesn't even have to be thrown.

Holding and DPI are not the same thing.

I do not think that is a miss, I think they are more tolerant of players and coaches at that level.

Peace

Maybe so, but they shouldn't be. He was out of control and made them look bad.

No question, Brady was out of control, but the only one he made "look bad" was himself. The Referee he was trying to berate maintained his poise and looked like most adults do when dealing with an irate child.

What could he possibly show you? Once his shoulders are pushed back, the only way he can keep from falling backwards is to move his feet backwards. As it was, he did a little of both. Would it have looked more like a struggle if he hadn't tried to stay on his feet, and just fallen on his butt where he'd been standing? Or would it have looked more like a struggle if he'd moved his feet backward fast enough to stay erect? Looks like you want players to draw fouls by play acting, only it's not even clear which way you want them to act!

He was in the process of changing direction when he was hit. His next move was to move his upper body forward, but that movement was prevented by the opponent's pushing him on his shoulders.

And need I remind others in this thread that "catchable" means possible to catch, not "likely"? When the long haired player came in to intercept the ball, you are not to judge whether his presence would've made it merely difficult for the interfered-with player to catch the ball, only whether it would've been impossible. The purpose of the interference rule is to keep opponents from using contact to deprive one of the opp'ty or lessen one's ability to catch the ball; it's not to be presumed that a catch would have been made in the absence of the contact. If a "would've been caught" standard were applicable generally to pass interference fouls, then you'd see all sorts of head-scratching and appeals to the players' demonstrated abilities as receivers.

In case you're wondering, I had no interest in the teams or even knowledge of this game, and am judging solely by the video loop that's been posted here.

Great point.

The problem the people who are arguing for DPI on this play are failing to recognize is the actions by Gronk are largely irrelevant. Don't apply normal DPI logic and categories. As JRut has stated very clearly several times, the philosophy at the NFL level (and I've heard at the NCAA level...not sure if that's extended across all conferences) is this kind of contact is ignored when the pass is underthrown and intercepted. In most cases whether he could recover and get to the ball absent the contact is not relevant. Don't make this harder than it has to be.

If that's indeed the philosophy, it's not in line with the written rule.

You're saying that one defender could tackle the receiver and allow a second defender to make an uncontested interception that the receiver could otherwise have made a play on.

And JRutledge, Gronkowski clearly was changing direction towards the ball until he was shoved and dragged through the end zone.

If you think that is clear, then when you make that call I hope you can justify it better than what the supervisors or the video tape training has shown. I can tell you if I make that call for the reason you suggest, I probably will not be working very long at that level. You can take that for what it is worth.

Peace

That's about par for the course.

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

If we were to change this up a little bit, and the receiver was not too deep on the pass, but instead the defender just locked him up and drove him sideways and the ball was intercepted by a player standing exactly where he was standing, I think everyone here would have pass interference (with the exception of you?). But your argument here would be exactly as applicable. That's a problem for this line of reasoning.
I'm fine with the reasoning because of the interception, he never could have caught this ball anyway, but the argument that he was not interfered with at all because he didn't fight back seems incredibly specious. Am I missing something about what you're positing?

I have had several people agree with me about what Gronk was not doing, so do not be so sure I am alone on this one. ;)


Well then you need to work more college ball or watch the NCAA videos. Because the level of contact and how it affected the play is often talked about. And at least for who I worked with it is not unusual to have a play be reviewed and it suggested that the call was "Too technical" from the supervisors on things like these. And if the action does not fit the specific categories, you will get dinged or downgraded for not following the philosophy. And that is why this discussion is often differnet with guys who primarily work HS and those that work college are often different on these matters.

Peace

The fact that holding philosophies often go against the written rule. As do the philosophies of many rules in many sports. This isn't unique.

It's obvious what I meant to anyone who doesn't have tunnel vision on the subject.

Everything we do is guided not only by the written rule, but also by philosophy. You can't be a top official unless you understand and are comfortable with both.

That might explain why you're seeing this play so much differently than everyone else. This shoulder tap is not even remotely interference. You might notice that Gronk actually does almost exactly the same thing an instant before. The interference begins when Gronk's progress is impeded.