Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 911347)

Here's where I'm confused: It's not DPI because Gronk didn't try to ward off the defender and get to where he could make the catch but Rich points out such warding off would be OPI.

So it seems to me, Gronk reset his feet to move forward and then was driven back before the interception was made. Had there been no contact, I think Gronk could have taken a step and dove and had a slight chance of catching the ball.

Leaving that aside, it seems the initial contact clears Gronk out of the path of the secondary defender who makes the interception.

At the end of the day, that this play can reasonably be considered legal is a problem with the rules more than the refereeing.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 911357)

I'm ignoring the contact on Gronk to see what I think would have happened without it.

Without it, he would have had to completely alter his momentum in ways no man his size has ever done, and then go through another defender (that would have been OPI) to catch the ball.

The contact on Gronk was certainly illegal; but the ruling is that it had no effect on the play because the interception occurred where (not "when') it did: before the ball got to the players involved in the DPI. It's as if Brady had just thrown it into the stands.

Originally Posted by scrounge (Post 911358)

But he was slowing down and starting to come back right as Kuechly started driving him back. Maybe he's able to screen off the DB trying to slip under in the vacated space, maybe he's not. But I don't know and I've seen that freak make some mighty freaky catches. For me, that's more than enough uncertainty to not call that clearly uncatchable and therefore a foul.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 911357)

I'm ignoring the contact on Gronk to see what I think would have happened without it.

Without it, he would have had to completely alter his momentum in ways no man his size has ever done, and then go through another defender (that would have been OPI) to catch the ball.

The contact on Gronk was certainly illegal; but the ruling is that it had no effect on the play because the interception occurred where (not "when') it did: before the ball got to the players involved in the DPI. It's as if Brady had just thrown it into the stands.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 911359)

My understanding is there really isn't a lot of judgment involved, though. If it's intercepted prior to getting to the player who was interfered with, it's uncatchable by definition.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 911345)

No, the rule says nothing about the timing of the interception with regard to the contact when determining whether the ball was catchable. No one here disputes the contact was before, so your strawman may burn brightly, but you've done nothing to refute the fact that the ball was uncatchable. Your still-shot does nothing to change that.

The ball was intercepted well before it got to where Gronk was impeded. Thus, by rule, the ball was not catchable and the DPI is voided.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 911363)

The NFL supervisor said it was a good call on a tight play. It really does not matter what we think if the NFL is not downgrading their officials for this play. None of us here are at that level and do not have to answer to the NFL for what was called.

Peace

Originally Posted by bcl1127 (Post 911374)

Hate to disagree, but he said they got the mechanics correct, he never really said it was a good call. All he would say is that he would not say it was wrong. He went out of his way to not say they it was right.

He was fence sitting.

Obviously we don't have the answer to what was called or what not with the NFL, but it is a good discussion point.

Originally Posted by bcl1127 (Post 911374)

Hate to disagree, but he said they got the mechanics correct, he never really said it was a good call. All he would say is that he would not say it was wrong. He went out of his way to not say they it was right.

He was fence sitting.

Obviously we don't have the answer to what was called or what not with the NFL, but it is a good discussion point.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 911375)

Frankly, I'd rather see more of that than calling out officials for missing judgment calls all the time. What they're saying is, on a close judgment call, they're not making it a policy of publicly announcing whether they think it was correct. If it's a standard policy, then we'll never know on these plays. That's how it should be, IMO.

And getting the mechanics correct dismisses those complaints that "they shouldn't have picked up a flag on the last play of the game" or "the white hat should have given a more thorough explanation."

Originally Posted by bcl1127 (Post 911384)

I agree, I don't mind it, but he never says they were correct. I would rather him say he is correct.

Originally Posted by bcl1127 (Post 911384)

I agree, I don't mind it, but he never says they were correct. I would rather him say he is correct.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 911288)

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.

Originally Posted by BayStateRef (Post 911400)

Not quite.

ESPN broke this down, on its Sports Science segment, and shows that Gronk was slowing down and would have been in position to make a catch (not that he would have made it...but he would have been in position to do so).

Sport Science examines game-ending call - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

Originally Posted by BayStateRef (Post 911400)

Not quite.

ESPN broke this down, on its Sports Science segment, and shows that Gronk was slowing down and would have been in position to make a catch