Carolina vs New England last play

[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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not sure how physically forcing someone six yards through the end zone is "minimal" contact. The contact started within a couple yards of the point of interception and drove him away from the ball.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I'm not sure how physically forcing someone six yards through the end zone is "minimal" contact. The contact started within a couple yards of the point of interception and drove him away from the ball.

The contact didn't force him six yards. His momentum already had him going that direction, and he likely would have ended up in the same place without any contact. That is not he issue here.

[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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Here's where I'm confused: It's not DPI because Gronk didn't try to ward off the defender and get to where he could make the catch but Rich points out such warding off would be OPI.

So it seems to me, Gronk reset his feet to move forward and then was driven back before the interception was made. Had there been no contact, I think Gronk could have taken a step and dove and had a slight chance of catching the ball.

Leaving that aside, it seems the initial contact clears Gronk out of the path of the secondary defender who makes the interception.

At the end of the day, that this play can reasonably be considered legal is a problem with the rules more than the refereeing.

[JRutledge]

Being a deep wing in college, they do not want us calling PI just because there is the mere fact of contact. I cannot speak for what others might do, but there has to be an advantae by the contact and Gronk was not put at any disadvantage becuase he never tried to attempt to go for an underthrown ball. That of course is a judgment call, but that kind of judgment is what keeps you at that level or never allows you to get there. And even in high school I would not call DPI if a pass is so clearly not in the area, but the NFL and NCAA makes it clear that a player has to be able to make a play on the ball. Gronk never tried to go for the ball at all and the ball was clearly intercepted in front of him.

Peace

[bisonlj]

I know the NFL and NCAA philosophies aren't always in sync, but we've had a few training video plays this year with similar actions. If there is contact that is normally DPI but the pass is intercepted in front of that contact, there is no foul. I remember one play in particular where the first defender was in chase mode on a crossing route and definitely knocked the receiver down before the ball arrived. But another defender cut the route short 3-4 yards in front of this contact to intercept the ball. We were told to NOT flag that as DPI. I see this as a play in the same category. I also felt Gerry Austin's comments Monday night were in sync with that philosophy. Dean Blandino didn't mention it with his comments last night so it may not be the same philosophy in the NFL. But I really like that philosophy because while there was early contact, it had no impact on the receiver's ability to catch the ball because it was underthrown and someone else was there to make the catch.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Here's where I'm confused: It's not DPI because Gronk didn't try to ward off the defender and get to where he could make the catch but Rich points out such warding off would be OPI.

So it seems to me, Gronk reset his feet to move forward and then was driven back before the interception was made. Had there been no contact, I think Gronk could have taken a step and dove and had a slight chance of catching the ball.

Leaving that aside, it seems the initial contact clears Gronk out of the path of the secondary defender who makes the interception.

At the end of the day, that this play can reasonably be considered legal is a problem with the rules more than the refereeing.

I'm ignoring the contact on Gronk to see what I think would have happened without it.

Without it, he would have had to completely alter his momentum in ways no man his size has ever done, and then go through another defender (that would have been OPI) to catch the ball.

The contact on Gronk was certainly illegal; but the ruling is that it had no effect on the play because the interception occurred where (not "when') it did: before the ball got to the players involved in the DPI. It's as if Brady had just thrown it into the stands.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

If he hadn't been impeded, he may have had a play on the ball. That's all that needs to be said.

It certainly wasn't "clearly uncatchable."