Actually, they don't. They point out that he would have been competing with the other defender for the catch and his catching it would have been unlikely. But that's a far cry from uncatchable.

I wonder if they would've bothered with the story if the result would've been otherwise. I think not -- ESPN (and Deadspin) are only interested if it keeps the controversy going. And of course at the expense of the officials.

He would have had to have gone through the interceptors back and that would have then been OPI.

Gee, you think maybe he seemed to make no effort because the opponent holding him was in his face at that moment so he couldn't see the ball?

This is about as textbook a case of pass interference as you could illustrate. One player has turned around to play the ball while the opponent has his back to the ball and wraps him up. The ball comes down in a place where you can't say the player facing the ball could not have gotten his hands to. The BJ is about as well placed as I could imagine to see not only the act of interference but also the path of the ball; I don't see why anybody thinks he'd need help to make that judgment. And just in case you've never seen one player beat two opponents to the ball on a play like that, I'll tell you it happens.

For those of you saying A87 was already going backward when he was contacted, suppose he had the ball when he was tackled in the field of play like that. Where would you spot the ball? I bet you wouldn't've assumed all that backward momentum was his own in that case.

And as to the long-haired player who caught the ball, I could see A87 possibly getting shoulder to shoulder with him and having a shot at the ball had the other player not interfered with his opp'ty. "Uncatchable" means "impossible to catch", and how can you say that was impossible? Of course if the ball were intercepted or deflected a sufficient distance in front of the interfered-with player to have made it impossible for him to get to in time, that's one way a pass could be uncatchable, but the time and distance in this case are not like that.

Look at A87's shoulders & hips when B5- puts his hands on those shoulders. Once B5- gives him that shove, it's all over, because it's all A87 can do to stay on his feet, much less try to move to the ball. A87 started in position to change his momentum, but after that shove, his shoulders were behind his hips and he had no further chance. Therefore that shove on the shoulders was the pass interference; putting his arms around him and getting face mask to face mask was just window dressing. Erase B5- from the video at the instant just as that shove begins -- which you're justified in doing because he's making no play on the ball -- and then it's just A87 and the long-haired B guy, and you could easily imagine it being a contest for the ball.

No he would not. He could go around the side and easily make a play on that ball.

Easily? ? ? :)

Easily make a play, yes.

Easily catch, no.

Frankly, I think you guys are embarrassing yourselves by saying he wouldn't have had a play on the ball absent the contact.

If we're being Frank, I think you're insane for thinking he could stop on a dime, go the other direction, get completely through a defender and make any play at all on anything in the .34 seconds between the first instant of interference and the ball being caught. But that's just me.

I'd agree with you if we didn't see such things multiple times each game and have a clip where someone worked out the physics of the thing to show that it works out. But yeah, never could happen.

I haven't been in this discussion at all; just reading it. I was poking fun at the absolutist and hyperbolic terms sports fans use to express their opinions. Yours was far from the only such post in this thread; it was just the last one.

Except for two things:

1) I'm a referee (although not an American football referee). (And specifically not a fan of either of these teams. I wasn't even watching the game.)
2) My statement was neither absolutist nor hyperbolic.

For example, I didn't say there was no way he wouldn't have made the catch. I said he would have easily had a play, that is, an opportunity to make a catch. If you had read the whole thread, you'd have seen that I give him no more than 1 chance in 5 of actually making the catch. That's hardly absolutist or hyperbolic.

Whatever you want to say. It would not be hyperbolic to say that a referee could easily have seen a possibility of a play, but given that there were 2 defenders between him and the ball (assuming no interference, there would have been 2), to say making the play itself would be easy... Even for Gronk, it wouldn't have been easy. Possible, with Gronk-like effort, but not easy. Hence, my comment. (Intended to be humorous, not argumentative...)

My thought exactly.

I was shocked they picked the flag up. I think without the contact Gronk has a shot at the ball, albeit a small one. Once he is denied that opportunity illegally that is DPI.

But like MD said, this is in fact a judgement call. So on this play half of us would throw, half of us wouldn't. That's just the nature of the game and on Monday it worked against New England.

Apparently they've changed the rule since 2009:

Bill Belichick Shows Patriots Lions-Browns Play From 2009 - Business Insider