Carolina vs New England last play

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Gronkowski is 6'6, 265 pounds, no way he was prevented to come back to a ball by a defensive back or most linebackers. Please, if he wanted the call he could have made an effort to come back to the football. I do not call those kinds of plays until the defender is preventing movement. There were just arms around him, that is never a foul in itself. It is when you are restricted from movement, then it is a foul. Gronk was moving away from the ball, not back to the ball.

Peace

You certainly have an... interesting... way of seeing things.

I agree with scrounge. At the very least there's no way the flag should have been picked up after it was thrown.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I agree with scrounge. At the very least there's no way the flag should have been picked up after it was thrown.

Sorry, but it was either uncatchable or it wasn't. They pick up flags all the time for this reason; why is it not acceptable here?

It almost sounds like Mark Brunell on Sports Center, "You gotta call something here. Give me something."

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sorry, but it was either uncatchable or it wasn't. They pick up flags all the time for this reason; why is it not acceptable here?

It almost sounds like Mark Brunell on Sports Center, "You gotta call something here. Give me something."

It wasn't "clearly uncatchable" as Gerry Austin tried to claim. So the flag should have remained.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

it wasn't "clearly uncatchable" as gerry austin tried to claim. So the flag should have remained.

+1

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

It wasn't "clearly uncatchable" as Gerry Austin tried to claim. So the flag should have remained.

Interesting. I just don't see how Gronk would have been able to stop on a dime and come back to make that catch, even without the contact.

I agreed with Austin. Austin also indicated that the rule was specifically applicable because the pass was "intercepted or knocked down" short of the receiver's location.

[hbk314]

The contact starts pretty close to where the ball was picked off, and he was trying to play the ball when the defender drove him back through the end zone. The more I watch that, the more I wonder what they were thinking picking the flag up.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

The contact starts pretty close to where the ball was picked off, and he was trying to play the ball when the defender drove him back through the end zone. The more I watch that, the more I wonder what they were thinking picking the flag up.

Thanks for the video. Look at the defender who caught the ball and where he is when Gronk is first contacted by the other defender. He is already closer to the ball than Gronk, and he is headed toward the ball, while Gronk is heading away. There's no chance for the receiver to catch this ball at all.

[bcl1127]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Thanks for the video. Look at the defender who caught the ball and where he is when Gronk is first contacted by the other defender. He is already closer to the ball than Gronk, and he is headed toward the ball, while Gronk is heading away. There's no chance for the receiver to catch this ball at all.

I think you can make the case he was slowing to come back to the ball, but could not due to the contact. Seriously, if the penalty was called, I bet most who now disagree would be agreeing with the call. I think you can make the case either way. This is not cut and dry. Not no chance. You could say that every ball that is not caught is technically "uncatchable" there is not cut and dry response here.

I don't think anyone can say that there was "No Chance" Gronkowski could have caught the ball...

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Thanks for the video. Look at the defender who caught the ball and where he is when Gronk is first contacted by the other defender. He is already closer to the ball than Gronk, and he is headed toward the ball, while Gronk is heading away. There's no chance for the receiver to catch this ball at all.

Look at how Gronk started to turn back right before Kuechly started driving him. Maybe he screens the DB off, maybe he doesn't. This isn't some run of the mill TE, it's a 6'7" freak who's made some amazing catches before. I don't know if he could beat the DB to the ball, but no way I could say definitively that he couldn't. He didn't even get the chance. The only reason he's heading away is that one of the best LB's in the game is driving him back with all his force. Maybe Gronk might not have made it back, but was there a 20% chance? 10% chance? It strikes me as hyperbole to say 0%. And if Gronk was denied a legitimate chance at the ball by illegal contact, it's gotta be DPI in my opinion.

I can understand but not agree with others saying its a good no call, but there's nothing at all clear cut about this. Many here see it one way, others another. On the expert front, we've got Jerry Austin saying good no call, Mike Periera split, and Jim Daopoulos saying DPI.

Originally Posted by hbk314

It wasn't "clearly uncatchable" as Gerry Austin tried to claim. So the flag should have remained.

Originally Posted by Adam

I agreed with Austin. Austin also indicated that the rule was specifically applicable because the pass was "intercepted or knocked down" short of the receiver's location.

Well the rule (NFL 8-5-3c) doesn't say "clearly uncatchable", it says "uncatchable". I agree with all the posters saying the flag should not have been thrown in the first place. However, the object is to get the call right and if, in the officials judgement, the ball was intercepted too far away from Gronk for the holding/pass interference to matter, then the flag should have been picked up.

Flags are picked up all the time. If there is defensive holding on a punt and a fair catch is signalled and caught, those flags are picked up. This parallels the situation last night, due to the interception and/or ball being batted down. If the ball is never intercepted or batted down and passes near Gronk at all, this penalty is easily enforced.

Edit: Also important to note that Mike Periera disagreed with the flag being picked up once thrown, however I think he does agree with the call on the field.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Well the rule (NFL 8-5-3c) doesn't say "clearly uncatchable", it says "uncatchable". I agree with all the posters saying the flag should not have been thrown in the first place. However, the object is to get the call right and if, in the officials judgement, the ball was intercepted too far away from Gronk for the holding/pass interference to matter, then the flag should have been picked up.

Flags are picked up all the time. If there is defensive holding on a punt and a fair catch is signalled and caught, those flags are picked up. This parallels the situation last night, due to the interception and/or ball being batted down. If the ball is never intercepted or batted down and passes near Gronk at all, this penalty is easily enforced.

The ball was intercepted so far away from him because he was dragged away from the play.

A flag was thrown. The ball wasn't uncatchable, considering where the contact began. If there's ANY chance he gets to that ball, the flag needs to stick.

I see nothing that would warrant picking the flag up. And then to run off the field without offering an explanation at all makes it seem that much worse.

Originally Posted by hbk314

The ball was intercepted so far away from him because he was dragged away from the play.

A flag was thrown. The ball wasn't uncatchable, considering where the contact began. If there's ANY chance he gets to that ball, the flag needs to stick.

I see nothing that would warrant picking the flag up. And then to run off the field without offering an explanation at all makes it seem that much worse.

The route is undercut by the DB before Kuchely makes meaningful holding/pass interference with Gronk.

Gronk seems to continue on his route due to his momentum (with only a little dragging going on). I don't see Gronk struggling to return to challenge the interception.

Well if the officials decided the interception rendered the potential pass interference or holding contact incidental, would that warrant picking up the flag? Cuz that's what they did.

[Welpe]

I've come around on this play myself from first being DPI to now thinking that this was not only the right call but that the play was well officiated all around.

The B made the only call he could, which was that of DPI. He is not in a good position I don't think to rule on the catchability of the pass.

After the play, he is immediately coming in looking for additional information. The S and the U both come in immediately to provide that information. The flag is then picked up, the announcement is made and the game is over.

Living with a flag here because it was thrown would mean ignoring additional information which is clearly what we should not be doing on a play. We are constantly being taught that if another official has information to help take another off of a flag, we should do so. What better time than the last play of the game?

As to the actual catchability of the pass, I do not think that it was catchable. Gronkowski made no attempt at all to get back to the ball and the pass was well under thrown resulting in it being picked up before it came close to reaching him. I think his own momentum carried him further away from the spot where the ball was going to end up.

Note that Mike P. said that the argument could be made that the pass was uncatchable but that the flag was thrown so they should go with a penalty. Frankly I find that line of thinking a little baffling, especially if the end goal is to get the call right.

Gerald Austin, also a supervisor of officials in CUSA, thinks they made the right call. They disagree, just like we do here.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by hbk314

And then to run off the field without offering an explanation at all makes it seem that much worse.

The Referee did offer an explanation in his final announcement.

[bcl1127]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Flags are picked up all the time. If there is defensive holding on a punt and a fair catch is signalled and caught, those flags are picked up. This parallels the situation last night, due to the interception and/or ball being batted down. If the ball is never intercepted or batted down and passes near Gronk at all, this penalty is easily enforced.

So are you saying any time a pass is intercepted there should never be PI called? The call that all the time. Just because the pass ended in an INT does not negate the restrictions on the offense and defense when the pass is in the air...