And I think many of us could have predicted this response from you. The argument style of taking one sentence someone says and magnifying that statement with "always" or "never" is rarely conducive to good discussion. He didn't say never. He didn't mean never.

On THIS play, the receiver makes no effort to catch this ball - had he done so, and then been prevented from doing so, the case might be different. OTOH, it might not - at the moment the defender first contacts the receiver, there is already a defender heading toward the ball in between the receiver (who is heading away from it) and the ball. The existence of that defender (whether he catches it or not) makes it impossible that the receiver would have ever had a chance to catch this ball. To do so, he would have had to go through the defender covering him (possible OPI) and then gone through the defender who actually caught the ball (definite OPI). There is zero chance this receiver could have caught this ball given the existence of the defender who actually caught it.

Thanks for the video. Look at the defender who caught the ball and where he is when Gronk is first contacted by the other defender. He is already closer to the ball than Gronk, and he is headed toward the ball, while Gronk is heading away. There's no chance for the receiver to catch this ball at all.

He didn't, really. This is the only thing I think they did poorly. R merely says, "There is no flag for interference. The game is over."

I think you can make the case he was slowing to come back to the ball, but could not due to the contact. Seriously, if the penalty was called, I bet most who now disagree would be agreeing with the call. I think you can make the case either way. This is not cut and dry. Not no chance. You could say that every ball that is not caught is technically "uncatchable" there is not cut and dry response here.

I don't think anyone can say that there was "No Chance" Gronkowski could have caught the ball...

Technically correct isn't the best way. How hard would it have been to say "there is no foul for pass interference. The pass was uncatchable" like most other referees?

I agree. He was clearly making an attempt at the ball when the defender dragged him through the end zone.

I don't think it was that clear. That was a horrible pass (according to the guy who threw it) and Gronk was not getting to it.

Again, no way he turns on a dime and gets back to go through the guy who caught it; even without the defender draped all over him. His momentum was taking him in the opposite direction. He's not a point guard.

My point is it is not that clear. Nothing about the play is cut and dry. I have seen flags in the NFL on poorly thrown balls. I just think this is not as cut and dry as is being portrayed by some. It will be interested to see what the league says tonight.

I have more of a problem with them picking the flag up than with the fact that DPI wasn't ultimately called. You could argue that it wasn't catchable, although I don't think that was infinitely clear, especially in real time. I just don't like how flags are picked up on judgment calls in football and it seems pretty unique to that sport. To top it off they pick the flag up and then don't explain why it isn't DPI when the BJ emphatically threw his flag indicating such.

Look at how Gronk started to turn back right before Kuechly started driving him. Maybe he screens the DB off, maybe he doesn't. This isn't some run of the mill TE, it's a 6'7" freak who's made some amazing catches before. I don't know if he could beat the DB to the ball, but no way I could say definitively that he couldn't. He didn't even get the chance. The only reason he's heading away is that one of the best LB's in the game is driving him back with all his force. Maybe Gronk might not have made it back, but was there a 20% chance? 10% chance? It strikes me as hyperbole to say 0%. And if Gronk was denied a legitimate chance at the ball by illegal contact, it's gotta be DPI in my opinion.

I can understand but not agree with others saying its a good no call, but there's nothing at all clear cut about this. Many here see it one way, others another. On the expert front, we've got Jerry Austin saying good no call, Mike Periera split, and Jim Daopoulos saying DPI.

What's legitimate? 60%? 30? 5?

So am I, but the folks at ESPN have already invested quite a bit of time denigrating the call. I don't think the NFL announcement will make a difference either way.

That should be the last thing that you should have a problem with. Flags are often picked up when one official sees part of a play and (properly, I might add) throws the flag, but another official sees another part of the play and has information that renders the flag no longer a penalty. Happens all the time. It SHOULD happen. You should notice that the official who threw the flag IMMEDIATELY went to his partner for additional information.

About the only time they routinely go the other way around (one official sees part, DOESN'T flag, then goes to a 2nd official for the other part of the play and THEN they flag it) is intentional grounding.

I hear you on the rest... but this part is just wrong. He's heading away because that's the direction he was heading before any contact at all. Could he have stopped without the contact? Maybe. Probably not, but maybe. Could he have stopped, reversed, and went the other direction by 4 yards? Heck no. Could he have stopped, reversed, clicked on ghost-mode, passed through the defender who caught the ball, unclicked ghost-mode, rematerialized and caught the pass in front of that defender.

Um... no.

Look at the position and direction of the defender who caught the ball at the instant the "interfering defender" first contacted the receiver. Already the defender is closer to the ball than the receiver (and heading toward the ball, while the receiver is heading away). And the interference doesn't really occur until slightly after that.

This ball, even absent the existence of the interfering defender, was not catchable because of the existence of the intercepting defender. There is nothing the receiver could have done to magically get his body between that defender and the ball.

I dunno...what do you think? I think "uncatchable" means beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no play. I'd certainly say a 10% chance of catching is a reasonable albeit unlikely chance. I think we have to give the player every reasonable benefit of the doubt...it's catchable unless there's enough evidence to say it isn't. I respect that many judge it isnt in this case but I wholeheartedly disagree.