Carolina vs New England last play

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

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.

I believe you, but that may well have been the play that prompted a change in the guidelines. Or those guys missed it and got downgraded later. Or any number of things.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

I believe you, but that may well have been the play that prompted a change in the guidelines.

Do you really think the NFL deliberately instituted guidelines (which are to be used only in case of doubt as to a ruling) that would overcome considerations of time and distance? And in figuring the time & distance #87 would've had to reach the ball, count from just as the opponent extended his hands to push on his shoulders. Some of you are referring to "front of the end zone" and "back of the end zone", while in reality the contact occurred very close in space to where the ball was intercepted.

And the claim that had he not received that push, #87 would've interfered with that opponent to reach the ball is absurd, because the opponent had his back turned and wasn't trying for the ball.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And the claim that had he not received that push, #87 would've interfered with that opponent to reach the ball is absurd, because the opponent had his back turned and wasn't trying for the ball.

I don't know about NFL or NCAA, but when has "trying for the ball" been a consideration for PI? The defender is entitled to his position on the field. Even if the defender isn't trying to get to the ball, he cannot be pushed or pulled to get to a pass in flight.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And the claim that had he not received that push, #87 would've interfered with that opponent to reach the ball is absurd, because the opponent had his back turned and wasn't trying for the ball.

The statement is that he would have had to interfere (OPI) with the defender who made the interception. IOW, legally catching the ball would have been nearly impossible.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

The statement is that he would have had to interfere (OPI) with the defender who made the interception. IOW, legally catching the ball would have been nearly impossible.

That's who that means? Look at their relative position before the interference; I think they each had a plausible line on the ball that didn't go thru the other.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And the claim that had he not received that push, #87 would've interfered with that opponent to reach the ball is absurd, because the opponent had his back turned and wasn't trying for the ball.

His back turned and wasn't trying for the ball? He CAUGHT the ball. Are you watching the same play?

[ajmc]

Somewhere there's an old saying, "There are none so blind as those who will not see", can you imagine what that says about those who refuse to even look?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

His back turned and wasn't trying for the ball? He CAUGHT the ball. Are you watching the same play?

Not the one with the long hair, the one who pushed #87.