The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:23am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #77 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
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.
  #78 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:35am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #79 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
I think Gronk's ability/agility is being severely underestimated here. He's an NFL player who can make spectacular catches, not a HS freshman.

Had he not been interfered with I give him maybe 1 chance in 5 of making the catch instead of the secondary defender.
  #80 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:48am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
If he hadn't been impeded, he may have had a play on the ball. That's all that needs to be said.

It certainly wasn't "clearly uncatchable."
  #81 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:55am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,286
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #82 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Palatine, IL
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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
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.
  #83 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:21am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
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.
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."
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 11:24am. Reason: additional thought
  #84 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:35am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
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.
He said they got it correct and they were not downgrading the officials. Sounds like he is saying he is fine with the call to me.

If they felt the call was incorrect, they would have said so like they do other times.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #85 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Palatine, IL
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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."
I agree, I don't mind it, but he never says they were correct. I would rather him say he is correct.
  #86 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:46am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
I agree, I don't mind it, but he never says they were correct. I would rather him say he is correct.
I'd rather they just stick to announcing when rule errors were made and continue to not announce when they disagree or agree with close judgment calls.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #87 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl1127 View Post
I agree, I don't mind it, but he never says they were correct. I would rather him say he is correct.
I kinda agree with him not saying it. While in the short term it might seem like he's backing them up by saying its correct, I like that he said this is a tight judgment call and they followed the proper procedure. If he said it was the right call (or the wrong call), it would mean every single close call would be asked about and de facto appealed to the league. Leave it to the officials on the field, it's not Blandino's place to judge every close call. And while I disagree with that call, I do also like that they won't downgrade an official that makes a tough call on a tight one.
  #88 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 01:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Boston area
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
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
  #89 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 02:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayStateRef View Post
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
They completely and utterly ignored the important part ... the other defender.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #90 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 02:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayStateRef View Post
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
Perhaps the necessity of providing each game official with the portable equipment necessary to match what "Sports Science Segment" can produce, analyse and assess, instantly, remains a cost (and practical) deterrent.

Each season I thank God for NF:1-1-9 "The game officials shall have the authority to make decisions for infractions of the rules. The use of replay or television monitoring equipment by the game officials in making any decision relating to the game is prohibited."

NF: 1-1-11 "Protestsof NFHS games are not recognized." gets special consideration as well.
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 06:48pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1