Carolina vs New England last play

[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 Adam

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.

I agree 100%. It is the defender that intercepted this ball that makes the ball uncatchable. If he's not there - this is 100% DPI (and if he's not there, the flagging official has nothing to ask for help about anyway).

[JasonTX]

This pass gets intercepted even if Gronk was not being covered. His momentum is taking him out of the end zone if it wasn't for the contact.

[hbk314]

Following the game, Blakeman defended the decision, saying Gronkowski's distance from the ball rendered the pass uncatchable and that there was "a determination that, in essence, uncatchability -- that the ball was intercepted at or about the same time the primary contact against the receiver occurred."

That's just a ridiculous claim. He was clearly contacted well before the ball was intercepted. He'd been driven back several yards already by the time the ball was picked.



And the contact started before that. He'd already been driven back around three yards by this point.

I'd say that officially makes the call incorrect, considering it was based on clearly incorrect logic.

[JasonTX]

It takes more than just contact to be considered DPI. He must be impeded. I'm also pretty sure the rules include something to the effect that the receiver must be making a "bona fide" attempt to reach the pass. Take away the contact and Gronks own momentum will still carry him deep. You can see him taking steps on his own that weren't the result of the contact. The contact was minimal. A still photo isn't conclusive. The video shows how minimal the contact was. His shoulders didn't dip, he wasn't twisted or turned. By the time the contact was more than minimum, the pass was intercepted. The speed of the pass was much faster than the speed that would have been required, even without the defender being there, for Gronk to be able to have put himself in a position to catch the pass. The pass was probably travelling at least 75 mph and Gronk would have had to have doubled that speed in order to cover the ground to close the distance from where he ran voluntarily to get back to a position to play the ball. I don't think Gronk can run that fast.

[bisonlj]

At the NCAA level we have been taught through clinics and video review that contact on a receiver a few yards behind the location where an interception takes place is NOT pass interference. We've been shown several plays where the contact was more significant than this. That's why several have said without the interception this would probably be DPI. Think of it like a punt blocker who makes contact with the ball before contacting the punter. That is not RTK. This is not DPI. The guys working this game have probably seen that and heard it much more often than me so that was a no-brainer call for them. The B probably realized right away he was a little quick on the trigger so looked for help to confirm he was wrong.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I'd say that officially makes the call incorrect, considering it was based on clearly incorrect logic.

No, the rule says nothing about the timing of the interception with regard to the contact when determining whether the ball was catchable. No one here disputes the contact was before, so your strawman may burn brightly, but you've done nothing to refute the fact that the ball was uncatchable. Your still-shot does nothing to change that.

The ball was intercepted well before it got to where Gronk was impeded. Thus, by rule, the ball was not catchable and the DPI is voided.

[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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

I certainly agree with the first part. Not the second. I think you're underestimating Gronk's chances of getting back and competing for that ball if Kuechly didn't drive him off. The DB slid under because of the space vacated by Gronk, which I say was more because of the contact than you say. That's cool, I just don't see it as definitively as you do.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by scrounge

I certainly agree with the first part. Not the second. I think you're underestimating Gronk's chances of getting back and competing for that ball if Kuechly didn't drive him off. The DB slid under because of the space vacated by Gronk, which I say was more because of the contact than you say. That's cool, I just don't see it as definitively as you do.

I'm not underestimating Gronk at all. The DB that slid over was ALREADY THERE at the very first instant the potential interference could have started. I suppose it's conceivable that Gronk could have stopped, reversed, and caught that ball had it been allowed to go to the ground. However, it's IMPOSSIBLE (as in ... 0 %) that he could have gotten all the way up to where the ball was actually caught, given that the DB was heading toward the ball, and Gronk away from it. Much less both gotten there AND gotten in front of the DB.

And as an aside - no matter how many times Steve Young says "competing for the ball", it doesn't make it true.

[bcl1127]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

Then any ball that is not caught is "uncatchable" because it was not caught. Interesting.

Nothing is ever 0% or 100%.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bcl1127

Then any ball that is not caught is "uncatchable" because it was not caught. Interesting.

Nothing is ever 0% or 100%.

Not true. A ball that crosses the out of bounds line 15 feet off the ground would be 0% catchable. A ball that lands 5 yards in front of a receiver would be 0% catchable. A ball that is batted down at the line of scrimmage is 0% catchable. And, importantly for this discussion, a ball that is intercepted before it ever reaches the receiver would be 0% catchable.

And for the record --- I love the irony in your final sentence. Nothing is ever 0% or 100%. Unintentional I suspect --- but loving the irony in that.