The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:01pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
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.
What Gerry seems to have stated was that if the pass is intercepted or knocked down before it gets to the player who was interfered with, then by definition it's "uncatchable." That's how I interpreted what he said on espin.

If that ball continues to the ground, the DPI probably stands, regardless of where it lands.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
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.
Uncatchable means uncatchable. 0%. Like in the play we're discussing.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
What Gerry seems to have stated was that if the pass is intercepted or knocked down before it gets to the player who was interfered with, then by definition it's "uncatchable." That's how I interpreted what he said on espin.

If that ball continues to the ground, the DPI probably stands, regardless of where it lands.
I agree 100%. It is the defender that intercepted this ball that makes the ball uncatchable. If he's not there - this is 100% DPI (and if he's not there, the flagging official has nothing to ask for help about anyway).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Uncatchable means uncatchable. 0%. Like in the play we're discussing.
I certainly agree with the first part. Not the second. I think you're underestimating Gronk's chances of getting back and competing for that ball if Kuechly didn't drive him off. The DB slid under because of the space vacated by Gronk, which I say was more because of the contact than you say. That's cool, I just don't see it as definitively as you do.

Last edited by scrounge; Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 04:33pm.
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Palatine, IL
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Uncatchable means uncatchable. 0%. Like in the play we're discussing.
Then any ball that is not caught is "uncatchable" because it was not caught. Interesting.

Nothing is ever 0% or 100%.
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
Then any ball that is not caught is "uncatchable" because it was not caught. Interesting.

Nothing is ever 0% or 100%.
Not true. A ball that crosses the out of bounds line 15 feet off the ground would be 0% catchable. A ball that lands 5 yards in front of a receiver would be 0% catchable. A ball that is batted down at the line of scrimmage is 0% catchable. And, importantly for this discussion, a ball that is intercepted before it ever reaches the receiver would be 0% catchable.

And for the record --- I love the irony in your final sentence. Nothing is ever 0% or 100%. Unintentional I suspect --- but loving the irony in that.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:57pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
Then any ball that is not caught is "uncatchable" because it was not caught. Interesting.
This is not what he said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
Nothing is ever 0% or 100%.
I honestly can't see how anyone could have reversed his momentum that quickly and gone through another person, legally, to make that catch.

Thus, not catchable.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
I certainly agree with the first part. Not the second. I think you're underestimating Gronk's chances of getting back and competing for that ball if Kuechly didn't drive him off. The DB slid under because of the space vacated by Gronk, which I say was more because of the contact than you say. That's cool, I just don't see it as definitively as you do.
I'm not underestimating Gronk at all. The DB that slid over was ALREADY THERE at the very first instant the potential interference could have started. I suppose it's conceivable that Gronk could have stopped, reversed, and caught that ball had it been allowed to go to the ground. However, it's IMPOSSIBLE (as in ... 0 %) that he could have gotten all the way up to where the ball was actually caught, given that the DB was heading toward the ball, and Gronk away from it. Much less both gotten there AND gotten in front of the DB.

And as an aside - no matter how many times Steve Young says "competing for the ball", it doesn't make it true.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:59pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by zm1283 View Post
I just don't like how flags are picked up on judgment calls in football and it seems pretty unique to that sport.
I think that is one of the great things about calling this sport. We have a team to help us on the difficult calls covering a large expanse of playing area.

Pass Interference is a tough play to officiate with a lot of variables. The catchability of the ball is often a judgment that should be made by multiple officials. Intentional grounding is another great example of a call that should be made with multiple officials.

On DPI it looks far better to pick up a flag than it does to put down a really late one.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 05:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Palatine, IL
Posts: 103
Well this really settles nothing. Blandino: We feel the officials followed proper protocol - NFL Videos

Blandino basically says they followed correct mechanics, and you can see how they could make that judgement call in real-time. Never says they were right or wrong...talk about walking the fence.

He does say no one will be downgraded as a result because they do not downgrade on tight judgement calls.
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 05:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 751
I though it was right to pick up the flag when it happened and I still like it today.

If this same thing between a receiver and a defender is happening at the pylon, nobody is talking about it because that receiver isn't going to catch the ball.

While obviously much closer to the play than at the pylon, Gronk wasn't going to catch this ball.
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 06:51pm
Medium Kahuna
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
I think that is one of the great things about calling this sport. We have a team to help us on the difficult calls covering a large expanse of playing area.
Team officiating is used in basketball and, more and more, in baseball too.
__________________
Never trust an atom: they make up everything.
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 08:02pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
Of course it is. I was saying that one of the great things about football is that we can pick up a flag and continue on.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 08:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 762
This pass gets intercepted even if Gronk was not being covered. His momentum is taking him out of the end zone if it wasn't for the contact.
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 19, 2013, 09:23pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Following the game, Blakeman defended the decision, saying Gronkowski's distance from the ball rendered the pass uncatchable and that there was "a determination that, in essence, uncatchability -- that the ball was intercepted at or about the same time the primary contact against the receiver occurred."
That's just a ridiculous claim. He was clearly contacted well before the ball was intercepted. He'd been driven back several yards already by the time the ball was picked.



And the contact started before that. He'd already been driven back around three yards by this point.

I'd say that officially makes the call incorrect, considering it was based on clearly incorrect logic.

Last edited by hbk314; Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 09:34pm.
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 05:17pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1