Carolina vs New England last play

[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...

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bcl1127

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...

I agree. He was clearly making an attempt at the ball when the defender dragged him through the end zone.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I agree. He was clearly making an attempt at the ball when the defender dragged him through the end zone.

I don't think it was that clear. That was a horrible pass (according to the guy who threw it) and Gronk was not getting to it.

Again, no way he turns on a dime and gets back to go through the guy who caught it; even without the defender draped all over him. His momentum was taking him in the opposite direction. He's not a point guard.

[bcl1127]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't think it was that clear. That was a horrible pass (according to the guy who threw it) and Gronk was not getting to it.

Again, no way he turns on a dime and gets back to go through the guy who caught it; even without the defender draped all over him.

My point is it is not that clear. Nothing about the play is cut and dry. I have seen flags in the NFL on poorly thrown balls. I just think this is not as cut and dry as is being portrayed by some. It will be interested to see what the league says tonight.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.

What's legitimate? 60%? 30? 5?

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Adam

What's legitimate? 60%? 30? 5?

I dunno...what do you think? I think "uncatchable" means beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no play. I'd certainly say a 10% chance of catching is a reasonable albeit unlikely chance. I think we have to give the player every reasonable benefit of the doubt...it's catchable unless there's enough evidence to say it isn't. I respect that many judge it isnt in this case but I wholeheartedly disagree.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by scrounge

I dunno...what do you think? I think "uncatchable" means beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no play. I'd certainly say a 10% chance of catching is a reasonable albeit unlikely chance. I think we have to give the player every reasonable benefit of the doubt...it's catchable unless there's enough evidence to say it isn't. I respect that many judge it isnt in this case but I wholeheartedly disagree.

What Gerry seems to have stated was that if the pass is intercepted or knocked down before it gets to the player who was interfered with, then by definition it's "uncatchable." That's how I interpreted what he said on espin.

If that ball continues to the ground, the DPI probably stands, regardless of where it lands.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by scrounge

I dunno...what do you think? I think "uncatchable" means beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no play. I'd certainly say a 10% chance of catching is a reasonable albeit unlikely chance. I think we have to give the player every reasonable benefit of the doubt...it's catchable unless there's enough evidence to say it isn't. I respect that many judge it isnt in this case but I wholeheartedly disagree.

Uncatchable means uncatchable. 0%. Like in the play we're discussing.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by scrounge

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.

I hear you on the rest... but this part is just wrong. He's heading away because that's the direction he was heading before any contact at all. Could he have stopped without the contact? Maybe. Probably not, but maybe. Could he have stopped, reversed, and went the other direction by 4 yards? Heck no. Could he have stopped, reversed, clicked on ghost-mode, passed through the defender who caught the ball, unclicked ghost-mode, rematerialized and caught the pass in front of that defender.

Um... no.

Look at the position and direction of the defender who caught the ball at the instant the "interfering defender" first contacted the receiver. Already the defender is closer to the ball than the receiver (and heading toward the ball, while the receiver is heading away). And the interference doesn't really occur until slightly after that.

This ball, even absent the existence of the interfering defender, was not catchable because of the existence of the intercepting defender. There is nothing the receiver could have done to magically get his body between that defender and the ball.

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.