Carolina vs New England last play

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That seems like you're eliminating the wrong "gray area" so to speak.

The rule is written giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense. In this play, the defender clearly committed a violation, but the flag was picked up because the officials determined the pass to be "clearly uncatchable."

That wasn't the case in reality. Not with the benefit of replay.

It just seems as though with the way the NFL rule is written and basic common sense that you should side with the aggrieved team and not the team doing something they're not supposed to.

How do you know what the rule was written for? PI rules apply to both the offense and defense and if the ball is tipped or uncatchable, it can apply to both sides of the ball.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Think of it like the ball being tipped before it gets to the receiver. That contact is ignored as well but it no less prevents the receiver from getting to it. There are lots of gray areas of judgement and a good official limits the gray. This philosophy is assuming the receiver would have a hard time catching the ball that is underthrown and intercepted by someone else.

I don't have an issue with the philosophy when the ball is intercepted at a point the receiver couldn't have reached absent the interference.

In this case though, it's the interference that prevents the receiver from reaching the point of the interception which is what allows the interception.

It's not interference because it was intercepted but it was intercepted because there was interference.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How do you know what the rule was written for? PI rules apply to both the offense and defense and if the ball is tipped or uncatchable, it can apply to both sides of the ball.

Peace

I meant it more as a statement on this play. With the way the rule is written, the benefit of the doubt goes to the offensive player on this play.

The defender committed a clear violation on a ball that wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I meant it more as a statement on this play. With the way the rule is written, the benefit of the doubt goes to the offensive player on this play.

The defender committed a clear violation on a ball that wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

OK, then why did the NFL not say what you just stated? It was so clear right?

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, then why did the NFL not say what you just stated? It was so clear right?

Peace

The NFL didn't contradict anything I said.

I said with the benefit of replay, it wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

All the NFL said was that it was understandable how watching the play full speed could make it seem uncatchable.

Dean Blandino, NFL's vice president of officiating, supports refs' decision - ESPN Boston

Now the logic they used, like I said, doesn't stand up when you have the benefit of replay.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

The NFL didn't contradict anything I said.

I said with the benefit of replay, it wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

All the NFL said was that it was understandable how watching the play full speed could make it seem uncatchable.

Dean Blandino, NFL's vice president of officiating, supports refs' decision - ESPN Boston

Now the logic they used, like I said, doesn't stand up when you have the benefit of replay.

I am very aware of what the NFL said. But they did not say that it was a foul either. And the call is not only based on the ball being uncatchable. There also has to be restriction, which there are categories for calling DPI or OPI in NFL training. I think the catchable part of this is only a small part of this not being called.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am very aware of what the NFL said. But they did not say that it was a foul either. And the call is not only based on the ball being uncatchable. There also has to be restriction, which there are categories for calling DPI or OPI in NFL training. I think the catchable part of this is only a small part of this not being called.

Peace

He was initially restricted within two yards of the spot where the ball was picked off as he started to change direction. He was then physically forced to the back of the endzone.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

He was initially restricted within two yards of the spot where the ball was picked off as he started to change direction. He was then physically forced to the back of the endzone.

That is your opinion and I certainly disagree. To be restricted you have to do something to show you are restricted. Keep running away form the ball and your legs never change direction or plant is not being restricted. Heck that has nothing to do with being restricted because someone's arms are around or on you. No different than a block and the person being blocked never tries to get away.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I don't have an issue with the philosophy when the ball is intercepted at a point the receiver couldn't have reached absent the interference.

In this case though, it's the interference that prevents the receiver from reaching the point of the interception which is what allows the interception.

It's not interference because it was intercepted but it was intercepted because there was interference.

The interference did not aid in the interception at all - which is the entire point here - the interceptor and the interferor are two different people and despite some claims that Gronk is either a) superhuman; b) able to go through people; or c) has a portable transporter, there is ZERO chance Gronk catches this ball if he's not interfered with. If you don't see that, there's no getting you to see it. The point, then, is moot.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is your opinion and I certainly disagree. To be restricted you have to do something to show you are restricted. Keep running away form the ball and your legs never change direction or plant is not being restricted. Heck that has nothing to do with being restricted because someone's arms are around or on you. No different than a block and the person being blocked never tries to get away.

Peace

You mean being physically forced to make a complete change of direction doesn't count as a restriction for you?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

You mean being physically forced to make a complete change of direction doesn't count as a restriction for you?

Gronk is bigger, stronger and faster then the guy that was guarding him. I think if he was restricted, I would see more than what I saw to call a foul. His legs never stopped and you never saw a struggle in his movement in any direction. Then again this is what we are taught all the time at the college level and this was does not fit the categories listed to call DPI. I have seen hundreds of play like this and to call this and the ball not getting there would be considered "too technical" by many.

And you can keep debating this, but that is not going to change my mind. I have been doing this long enough to know why I do or do not call thing. And if I was the BJ in this case, I would be happy I was talked off of this call.

Peace

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The interference did not aid in the interception at all - which is the entire point here - the interceptor and the interferor are two different people and despite some claims that Gronk is either a) superhuman; b) able to go through people; or c) has a portable transporter, there is ZERO chance Gronk catches this ball if he's not interfered with. If you don't see that, there's no getting you to see it. The point, then, is moot.

That has not been true in the past in the NFL. See Detroit vs. Cleveland in 2009.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The interference did not aid in the interception at all - which is the entire point here - the interceptor and the interferor are two different people and despite some claims that Gronk is either a) superhuman; b) able to go through people; or c) has a portable transporter, there is ZERO chance Gronk catches this ball if he's not interfered with. If you don't see that, there's no getting you to see it. The point, then, is moot.

Do you think that if he's not interfered with Gronk could have broken up the interception? And do you think that's irrelevant? It would be a strange rule that allowed the defense to take out a receiver to make an interception easier. (Though I'm just an interloper from another board and maybe the rule really is that strange).

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am very aware of what the NFL said. But they did not say that it was a foul either. And the call is not only based on the ball being uncatchable. There also has to be restriction, which there are categories for calling DPI or OPI in NFL training. I think the catchable part of this is only a small part of this not being called.

"Restriction" is a consideration for holding. It doesn't have to be one for interference. What sealed the play as I can see from that video loop is not holding, but the initial push that was given by an opponent to A87 to knock him off balance.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The interference did not aid in the interception at all - which is the entire point here - the interceptor and the interferor are two different people and despite some claims that Gronk is either a) superhuman; b) able to go through people; or c) has a portable transporter, there is ZERO chance Gronk catches this ball if he's not interfered with. If you don't see that, there's no getting you to see it. The point, then, is moot.

You honestly don't think Gronk could have competed for the ball at all if he had not been interfered with? Gronk would have easily made the spot of the interception had he not been interferred with.

Watch the clip again. He's feet are set to move forward when his shoulders are pushed behind his hips. It doesn't matter how strong or big someone is, they can't move forward with their shoulders behind their hips and that was the defender's action, not Gronks.

Absent that push, Gronk jumps forward for the ball and arrives simultaneously with the intercepting defender.

He doesn't have to be superhuman, go through anyone, or teleport to have a chance, albeit small, to catch the ball.

Actually watching it again, he's got a step on the interceptor before he's fouled.