Carolina vs New England last play

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Easily? ? ?

Easily make a play, yes.

Easily catch, no.

Frankly, I think you guys are embarrassing yourselves by saying he wouldn't have had a play on the ball absent the contact.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Easily make a play, yes.

Easily catch, no.

Frankly, I think you guys are embarrassing yourselves by saying he wouldn't have had a play on the ball absent the contact.

If we're being Frank, I think you're insane for thinking he could stop on a dime, go the other direction, get completely through a defender and make any play at all on anything in the .34 seconds between the first instant of interference and the ball being caught. But that's just me.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

If we're being Frank, I think you're insane for thinking he could stop on a dime, go the other direction, get completely through a defender and make any play at all on anything in the .34 seconds between the first instant of interference and the ball being caught. But that's just me.

I'd agree with you if we didn't see such things multiple times each game and have a clip where someone worked out the physics of the thing to show that it works out. But yeah, never could happen.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Easily make a play, yes.

Easily catch, no.

Frankly, I think you guys are embarrassing yourselves by saying he wouldn't have had a play on the ball absent the contact.

I haven't been in this discussion at all; just reading it. I was poking fun at the absolutist and hyperbolic terms sports fans use to express their opinions. Yours was far from the only such post in this thread; it was just the last one.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I haven't been in this discussion at all; just reading it. I was poking fun at the absolutist and hyperbolic terms sports fans use to express their opinions. Yours was far from the only such post in this thread; it was just the last one.

Except for two things:

1) I'm a referee (although not an American football referee). (And specifically not a fan of either of these teams. I wasn't even watching the game.)
2) My statement was neither absolutist nor hyperbolic.

For example, I didn't say there was no way he wouldn't have made the catch. I said he would have easily had a play, that is, an opportunity to make a catch. If you had read the whole thread, you'd have seen that I give him no more than 1 chance in 5 of actually making the catch. That's hardly absolutist or hyperbolic.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Except for two things:

1) I'm a referee (although not an American football referee). (And specifically not a fan of either of these teams. I wasn't even watching the game.)
2) My statement was neither absolutist nor hyperbolic.

For example, I didn't say there was no way he wouldn't have made the catch. I said he would have easily had a play, that is, an opportunity to make a catch. If you had read the whole thread, you'd have seen that I give him no more than 1 chance in 5 of actually making the catch. That's hardly absolutist or hyperbolic.

Whatever you want to say. It would not be hyperbolic to say that a referee could easily have seen a possibility of a play, but given that there were 2 defenders between him and the ball (assuming no interference, there would have been 2), to say making the play itself would be easy... Even for Gronk, it wouldn't have been easy. Possible, with Gronk-like effort, but not easy. Hence, my comment. (Intended to be humorous, not argumentative...)

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Whatever you want to say. It would not be hyperbolic to say that a referee could easily have seen a possibility of a play, but given that there were 2 defenders between him and the ball (assuming no interference, there would have been 2), to say making the play itself would be easy... Even for Gronk, it wouldn't have been easy. Possible, with Gronk-like effort, but not easy. Hence, my comment. (Intended to be humorous, not argumentative...)

I think we're working with two different definitions of play. By play, I mean a chance to catch the ball. You appear to mean actually catching the ball.

Absent interference, I think Gronk as a small chance at making the catch. I think he has a much larger chance of preventing the interception. Had time not expired, wouldn't that have mattered as well?

What if A & B were reversed here. In that case wouldn't it have been OPI? (Serious question. I have no idea.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I think we're working with two different definitions of play. By play, I mean a chance to catch the ball. You appear to mean actually catching the ball.

Absent interference, I think Gronk as a small chance at making the catch. I think he has a much larger chance of preventing the interception. Had time not expired, wouldn't that have mattered as well?

What if A & B were reversed here. In that case wouldn't it have been OPI? (Serious question. I have no idea.)

You may be right. I disagree, but I don't think it matters. Unless I'm mistaken (which is ALWAYS a possibility), the judgment is removed on this since the ball was intercepted before it made it to Gronk's location.

Not by rule, but by the guidelines the NFL referees are given.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Adam

You may be right. I disagree, but I don't think it matters. Unless I'm mistaken (which is ALWAYS a possibility), the judgment is removed on this since the ball was intercepted before it made it to Gronk's location.

Not by rule, but by the guidelines the NFL referees are given.

Look at the video in that link on my last post at the end of Page 7. Either they changed the guidelines or the crew back then didn't get the memo.

The Lions receiver is interfered with in the back of the endzone while another Browns defender intercepts the pass at the front of the endzone, short of where the interference happened. They called DPI, ran a play with no time on the clock, and Detroit won by one point.