The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:17pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318


The contact starts pretty close to where the ball was picked off, and he was trying to play the ball when the defender drove him back through the end zone. The more I watch that, the more I wonder what they were thinking picking the flag up.
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:42pm
Show up, keep up, shut up
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
It wasn't "clearly uncatchable" as Gerry Austin tried to claim. So the flag should have remained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
I agreed with Austin. Austin also indicated that the rule was specifically applicable because the pass was "intercepted or knocked down" short of the receiver's location.
Well the rule (NFL 8-5-3c) doesn't say "clearly uncatchable", it says "uncatchable". I agree with all the posters saying the flag should not have been thrown in the first place. However, the object is to get the call right and if, in the officials judgement, the ball was intercepted too far away from Gronk for the holding/pass interference to matter, then the flag should have been picked up.

Flags are picked up all the time. If there is defensive holding on a punt and a fair catch is signalled and caught, those flags are picked up. This parallels the situation last night, due to the interception and/or ball being batted down. If the ball is never intercepted or batted down and passes near Gronk at all, this penalty is easily enforced.

Edit: Also important to note that Mike Periera disagreed with the flag being picked up once thrown, however I think he does agree with the call on the field.

Last edited by AremRed; Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 01:47pm.
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:45pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
Well the rule (NFL 8-5-3c) doesn't say "clearly uncatchable", it says "uncatchable". I agree with all the posters saying the flag should not have been thrown in the first place. However, the object is to get the call right and if, in the officials judgement, the ball was intercepted too far away from Gronk for the holding/pass interference to matter, then the flag should have been picked up.

Flags are picked up all the time. If there is defensive holding on a punt and a fair catch is signalled and caught, those flags are picked up. This parallels the situation last night, due to the interception and/or ball being batted down. If the ball is never intercepted or batted down and passes near Gronk at all, this penalty is easily enforced.
The ball was intercepted so far away from him because he was dragged away from the play.

A flag was thrown. The ball wasn't uncatchable, considering where the contact began. If there's ANY chance he gets to that ball, the flag needs to stick.

I see nothing that would warrant picking the flag up. And then to run off the field without offering an explanation at all makes it seem that much worse.
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:51pm
Show up, keep up, shut up
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
The ball was intercepted so far away from him because he was dragged away from the play.

A flag was thrown. The ball wasn't uncatchable, considering where the contact began. If there's ANY chance he gets to that ball, the flag needs to stick.

I see nothing that would warrant picking the flag up. And then to run off the field without offering an explanation at all makes it seem that much worse.
The route is undercut by the DB before Kuchely makes meaningful holding/pass interference with Gronk.

Gronk seems to continue on his route due to his momentum (with only a little dragging going on). I don't see Gronk struggling to return to challenge the interception.

Well if the officials decided the interception rendered the potential pass interference or holding contact incidental, would that warrant picking up the flag? Cuz that's what they did.
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: A little east of there.
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
The route is undercut by the DB before Kuchely makes meaningful holding/pass interference with Gronk.

Gronk seems to continue on his route due to his momentum (with only a little dragging going on). I don't see Gronk struggling to return to challenge the interception.

Well if the officials decided the interception rendered the potential pass interference or holding contact incidental, would that warrant picking up the flag? Cuz that's what they did.
This.

If Gronk makes a an effort to reverse his momentum towards the ball, the flag may well have stuck.
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Palatine, IL
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
Flags are picked up all the time. If there is defensive holding on a punt and a fair catch is signalled and caught, those flags are picked up. This parallels the situation last night, due to the interception and/or ball being batted down. If the ball is never intercepted or batted down and passes near Gronk at all, this penalty is easily enforced.
So are you saying any time a pass is intercepted there should never be PI called? The call that all the time. Just because the pass ended in an INT does not negate the restrictions on the offense and defense when the pass is in the air...
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Palatine, IL
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
Well the rule (NFL 8-5-3c) doesn't say "clearly uncatchable", it says "uncatchable".
The official NFL rule book contains only one reference to the term “uncatchable.” Rule 8, Section 5, Article 3(c) identifies as a permissible act “[c]ontact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.”
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:02pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
I've come around on this play myself from first being DPI to now thinking that this was not only the right call but that the play was well officiated all around.

The B made the only call he could, which was that of DPI. He is not in a good position I don't think to rule on the catchability of the pass.

After the play, he is immediately coming in looking for additional information. The S and the U both come in immediately to provide that information. The flag is then picked up, the announcement is made and the game is over.

Living with a flag here because it was thrown would mean ignoring additional information which is clearly what we should not be doing on a play. We are constantly being taught that if another official has information to help take another off of a flag, we should do so. What better time than the last play of the game?

As to the actual catchability of the pass, I do not think that it was catchable. Gronkowski made no attempt at all to get back to the ball and the pass was well under thrown resulting in it being picked up before it came close to reaching him. I think his own momentum carried him further away from the spot where the ball was going to end up.

Note that Mike P. said that the argument could be made that the pass was uncatchable but that the flag was thrown so they should go with a penalty. Frankly I find that line of thinking a little baffling, especially if the end goal is to get the call right.

Gerald Austin, also a supervisor of officials in CUSA, thinks they made the right call. They disagree, just like we do here.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:04pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
Just because the pass ended in an INT does not negate the restrictions on the offense and defense when the pass is in the air...
It does if the receiver who was interfered with never would have had a chance to catch the ball.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:05pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
And then to run off the field without offering an explanation at all makes it seem that much worse.
The Referee did offer an explanation in his final announcement.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:07pm
Show up, keep up, shut up
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
The official NFL rule book contains only one reference to the term “uncatchable.” Rule 8, Section 5, Article 3(c) identifies as a permissible act “[c]ontact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.”
Yeah I screwed that up. My fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
So are you saying any time a pass is intercepted there should never be PI called? The call that all the time. Just because the pass ended in an INT does not negate the restrictions on the offense and defense when the pass is in the air...
Certainly not. Let's say the DB had never been there, and the ball was instead intercepted by the LB covering Gronk. That interception would not stand due to the prior pass interference. In this case however, it is a secondary defender that intercepts the ball before it eve gets near Gronk.

Had this pass been intercepted at the back of the endzone after flying past Gronk, pass interference/holding would have been called and enforced. Had the defender simply tipped the ball instead of catching, pass interference/holding would have been called and enforced. The pass was underthrown and intercepted before it reached Gronk, and based on the judgement of the officials Gronk did not have a chance to contend for the ball, thus rendering it "clearly uncatchable".
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:11pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
The Referee did offer an explanation in his final announcement.
"There is no foul" isn't an explanation.
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:13pm
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
Certainly not. Let's say the DB had never been there, and the ball was instead intercepted by the LB covering Gronk. That interception would not stand due to the prior pass interference. In this case however, it is a secondary defender that intercepts the ball before it ever gets near Gronk.
This. Same thing happened in an Auburn - LSU game a few years ago, and the explanation was that the ball was uncatchable due to the INT being well before the spot of the PI.
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:13pm
Show up, keep up, shut up
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
I've come around on this play myself from first being DPI to now thinking that this was not only the right call but that the play was well officiated all around.

The B made the only call he could, which was that of DPI. He is not in a good position I don't think to rule on the catchability of the pass.

After the play, he is immediately coming in looking for additional information. The S and the U both come in immediately to provide that information. The flag is then picked up, the announcement is made and the game is over.

Living with a flag here because it was thrown would mean ignoring additional information which is clearly what we should not be doing on a play. We are constantly being taught that if another official has information to help take another off of a flag, we should do so. What better time than the last play of the game?
Great thoughts here. I agree that it was handled extremely well given the circumstances. The B has to throw that flag at the time of the holding/pass interference. To simply huddle and then toss a flag after determining Gronk could have caught the pass would be an incredibly hard sell. Better to sell the flag at the spot, then ask for help. You see in the video that the B is immediately calling for help. I would certainly hope he is not downgraded, he made the best of an extremely tight situation.
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:15pm
Show up, keep up, shut up
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
"There is no foul" isn't an explanation.
That is all he is required to do. Long-winded Ed Hochuli-esque explanations are not the norm among white hats. They don't have to offer their reasoning at the time, they just have to communicate 1) what their call was, and 2) the result of the call. The R did both in his announcement.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Only in England ukumpire Softball 21 Thu Jun 28, 2007 03:41pm
Visiting Boston from England ukumpire Softball 1 Fri Mar 09, 2007 09:37pm
New England at Jacksonville Mark Dexter Football 11 Fri Jan 05, 2007 02:45pm
Camps in the New England Jay R Basketball 11 Sun Apr 02, 2006 07:12pm
England & Ireland ukumpire Softball 0 Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:12pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1