Carolina vs New England last play

[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.

[jimpiano]

I think the referee missed a golden opportunity to warn the NFL world about these types of plays.



Referee:
There is no foul on the play.
Look.
Don't ask us to bail you out after some wimpy pass into the end zone just because there was contact.
And if you are a receiver, for God's sake, give us a Hollywood attempt to reach the ball.

Otherwise we are going to do just as we have done, let the players decide the game.

And this game is over.

[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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

But he was slowing down and starting to come back right as Kuechly started driving him back. Maybe he's able to screen off the DB trying to slip under in the vacated space, maybe he's not. But I don't know and I've seen that freak make some mighty freaky catches. For me, that's more than enough uncertainty to not call that clearly uncatchable and therefore a foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by scrounge

But he was slowing down and starting to come back right as Kuechly started driving him back. Maybe he's able to screen off the DB trying to slip under in the vacated space, maybe he's not. But I don't know and I've seen that freak make some mighty freaky catches. For me, that's more than enough uncertainty to not call that clearly uncatchable and therefore a foul.

My understanding is there really isn't a lot of judgment involved, though. If it's intercepted prior to getting to the player who was interfered with, it's uncatchable by definition.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Originally Posted by Adam

My understanding is there really isn't a lot of judgment involved, though. If it's intercepted prior to getting to the player who was interfered with, it's uncatchable by definition.

I think Gronk's ability/agility is being severely underestimated here. He's an NFL player who can make spectacular catches, not a HS freshman.

Had he not been interfered with I give him maybe 1 chance in 5 of making the catch instead of the secondary defender.

[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."

[JRutledge]

The NFL supervisor said it was a good call on a tight play. It really does not matter what we think if the NFL is not downgrading their officials for this play. None of us here are at that level and do not have to answer to the NFL for what was called.

Peace

[bcl1127]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The NFL supervisor said it was a good call on a tight play. It really does not matter what we think if the NFL is not downgrading their officials for this play. None of us here are at that level and do not have to answer to the NFL for what was called.

Peace

Hate to disagree, but he said they got the mechanics correct, he never really said it was a good call. All he would say is that he would not say it was wrong. He went out of his way to not say they it was right.

He was fence sitting.

Obviously we don't have the answer to what was called or what not with the NFL, but it is a good discussion point.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bcl1127

Hate to disagree, but he said they got the mechanics correct, he never really said it was a good call. All he would say is that he would not say it was wrong. He went out of his way to not say they it was right.

He was fence sitting.

Obviously we don't have the answer to what was called or what not with the NFL, but it is a good discussion point.

Frankly, I'd rather see more of that than calling out officials for missing judgment calls all the time. What they're saying is, on a close judgment call, they're not making it a policy of publicly announcing whether they think it was correct. If it's a standard policy, then we'll never know on these plays. That's how it should be, IMO.

And getting the mechanics correct dismisses those complaints that "they shouldn't have picked up a flag on the last play of the game" or "the white hat should have given a more thorough explanation."

[bcl1127]

Originally Posted by Adam

Frankly, I'd rather see more of that than calling out officials for missing judgment calls all the time. What they're saying is, on a close judgment call, they're not making it a policy of publicly announcing whether they think it was correct. If it's a standard policy, then we'll never know on these plays. That's how it should be, IMO.

And getting the mechanics correct dismisses those complaints that "they shouldn't have picked up a flag on the last play of the game" or "the white hat should have given a more thorough explanation."

I agree, I don't mind it, but he never says they were correct. I would rather him say he is correct.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bcl1127

I agree, I don't mind it, but he never says they were correct. I would rather him say he is correct.

I'd rather they just stick to announcing when rule errors were made and continue to not announce when they disagree or agree with close judgment calls.