The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 02:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
They completely and utterly ignored the important part ... the other defender.
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.
  #92 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 05:51pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
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
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.
  #93 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 08:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.
He would have had to have gone through the interceptors back and that would have then been OPI.
  #94 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 09:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by Robert Goodman; Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 10:18pm. Reason: tag
  #95 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
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.
  #96 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 08:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonTX View Post
He would have had to have gone through the interceptors back and that would have then been OPI.
No he would not. He could go around the side and easily make a play on that ball.
  #97 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 08:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
No he would not. He could go around the side and easily make a play on that ball.
Easily? ? ?
__________________
Tom
  #98 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 08:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
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.
  #99 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 09:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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 was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #100 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 09:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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.
  #101 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Tom
  #102 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
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.
  #103 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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...)
__________________
Tom
  #104 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 12:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 24
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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.
  #105 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 21, 2013, 12:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,280
Apparently they've changed the rule since 2009:

Bill Belichick Shows Patriots Lions-Browns Play From 2009 - Business Insider
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 07:01am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1