Carolina vs New England last play

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bcl1127

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

This is not what he said.

Originally Posted by bcl1127

Nothing is ever 0% or 100%.

I honestly can't see how anyone could have reversed his momentum that quickly and gone through another person, legally, to make that catch.

Thus, not catchable.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Adam

I honestly can't see how anyone could have reversed his momentum that quickly and gone through another person, legally, to make that catch.

Thus, not catchable.

Not quite.

ESPN broke this down, on its Sports Science segment, and shows that Gronk was slowing down and would have been in position to make a catch (not that he would have made it...but he would have been in position to do so).

Sport Science examines game-ending call - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Not quite.

ESPN broke this down, on its Sports Science segment, and shows that Gronk was slowing down and would have been in position to make a catch (not that he would have made it...but he would have been in position to do so).

Sport Science examines game-ending call - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

They completely and utterly ignored the important part ... the other defender.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

They completely and utterly ignored the important part ... the other defender.

Actually, they don't. They point out that he would have been competing with the other defender for the catch and his catching it would have been unlikely. But that's a far cry from uncatchable.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Actually, they don't. They point out that he would have been competing with the other defender for the catch and his catching it would have been unlikely. But that's a far cry from uncatchable.

He would have had to have gone through the interceptors back and that would have then been OPI.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Not quite.

ESPN broke this down, on its Sports Science segment, and shows that Gronk was slowing down and would have been in position to make a catch

Perhaps the necessity of providing each game official with the portable equipment necessary to match what "Sports Science Segment" can produce, analyse and assess, instantly, remains a cost (and practical) deterrent.

Each season I thank God for NF:1-1-9 "The game officials shall have the authority to make decisions for infractions of the rules. The use of replay or television monitoring equipment by the game officials in making any decision relating to the game is prohibited."

NF: 1-1-11 "Protestsof NFHS games are not recognized." gets special consideration as well.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Not quite.

ESPN broke this down, on its Sports Science segment, and shows that Gronk was slowing down and would have been in position to make a catch (not that he would have made it...but he would have been in position to do so).

Sport Science examines game-ending call - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

I wonder if they would've bothered with the story if the result would've been otherwise. I think not -- ESPN (and Deadspin) are only interested if it keeps the controversy going. And of course at the expense of the officials.