Carolina vs New England last play

[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.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

This.

If Gronk makes a an effort to reverse his momentum towards the ball, the flag may well have stuck.

[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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Great thoughts here. I agree that it was handled extremely well given the circumstances. The B has to throw that flag at the time of the holding/pass interference. To simply huddle and then toss a flag after determining Gronk could have caught the pass would be an incredibly hard sell. Better to sell the flag at the spot, then ask for help. You see in the video that the B is immediately calling for help. I would certainly hope he is not downgraded, he made the best of an extremely tight situation.

[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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Welpe

The Referee did offer an explanation in his final announcement.

"There is no foul" isn't an explanation.

Originally Posted by hbk314

"There is no foul" isn't an explanation.

That is all he is required to do. Long-winded Ed Hochuli-esque explanations are not the norm among white hats. They don't have to offer their reasoning at the time, they just have to communicate 1) what their call was, and 2) the result of the call. The R did both in his announcement.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by AremRed

That is all he is required to do. Long-winded Ed Hochuli-esque explanations are not the norm among white hats. They don't have to offer their reasoning at the time, they just have to communicate 1) what their call was, and 2) the result of the call. The R did both in his announcement.

Technically correct isn't the best way. How hard would it have been to say "there is no foul for pass interference. The pass was uncatchable" like most other referees?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

The Referee did offer an explanation in his final announcement.

He didn't, really. This is the only thing I think they did poorly. R merely says, "There is no flag for interference. The game is over."