Carolina vs New England last play

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Not a fan of that if that's the case. Just because a defender may have better position doesn't mean he should get a free shot at the ball.

Think of it like the ball being tipped before it gets to the receiver. That contact is ignored as well but it no less prevents the receiver from getting to it. There are lots of gray areas of judgement and a good official limits the gray. This philosophy is assuming the receiver would have a hard time catching the ball that is underthrown and intercepted by someone else.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Think of it like the ball being tipped before it gets to the receiver. That contact is ignored as well but it no less prevents the receiver from getting to it. There are lots of gray areas of judgement and a good official limits the gray. This philosophy is assuming the receiver would have a hard time catching the ball that is underthrown and intercepted by someone else.

That seems like you're eliminating the wrong "gray area" so to speak.

The rule is written giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense. In this play, the defender clearly committed a violation, but the flag was picked up because the officials determined the pass to be "clearly uncatchable."

That wasn't the case in reality. Not with the benefit of replay.

It just seems as though with the way the NFL rule is written and basic common sense that you should side with the aggrieved team and not the team doing something they're not supposed to.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That seems like you're eliminating the wrong "gray area" so to speak.

The rule is written giving the benefit of the doubt to the offense. In this play, the defender clearly committed a violation, but the flag was picked up because the officials determined the pass to be "clearly uncatchable."

That wasn't the case in reality. Not with the benefit of replay.

It just seems as though with the way the NFL rule is written and basic common sense that you should side with the aggrieved team and not the team doing something they're not supposed to.

How do you know what the rule was written for? PI rules apply to both the offense and defense and if the ball is tipped or uncatchable, it can apply to both sides of the ball.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How do you know what the rule was written for? PI rules apply to both the offense and defense and if the ball is tipped or uncatchable, it can apply to both sides of the ball.

Peace

I meant it more as a statement on this play. With the way the rule is written, the benefit of the doubt goes to the offensive player on this play.

The defender committed a clear violation on a ball that wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I meant it more as a statement on this play. With the way the rule is written, the benefit of the doubt goes to the offensive player on this play.

The defender committed a clear violation on a ball that wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

OK, then why did the NFL not say what you just stated? It was so clear right?

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, then why did the NFL not say what you just stated? It was so clear right?

Peace

The NFL didn't contradict anything I said.

I said with the benefit of replay, it wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

All the NFL said was that it was understandable how watching the play full speed could make it seem uncatchable.

Dean Blandino, NFL's vice president of officiating, supports refs' decision - ESPN Boston

Now the logic they used, like I said, doesn't stand up when you have the benefit of replay.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

The NFL didn't contradict anything I said.

I said with the benefit of replay, it wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

All the NFL said was that it was understandable how watching the play full speed could make it seem uncatchable.

Dean Blandino, NFL's vice president of officiating, supports refs' decision - ESPN Boston

Now the logic they used, like I said, doesn't stand up when you have the benefit of replay.

I am very aware of what the NFL said. But they did not say that it was a foul either. And the call is not only based on the ball being uncatchable. There also has to be restriction, which there are categories for calling DPI or OPI in NFL training. I think the catchable part of this is only a small part of this not being called.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Think of it like the ball being tipped before it gets to the receiver. That contact is ignored as well but it no less prevents the receiver from getting to it. There are lots of gray areas of judgement and a good official limits the gray. This philosophy is assuming the receiver would have a hard time catching the ball that is underthrown and intercepted by someone else.

I don't have an issue with the philosophy when the ball is intercepted at a point the receiver couldn't have reached absent the interference.

In this case though, it's the interference that prevents the receiver from reaching the point of the interception which is what allows the interception.

It's not interference because it was intercepted but it was intercepted because there was interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I don't have an issue with the philosophy when the ball is intercepted at a point the receiver couldn't have reached absent the interference.

In this case though, it's the interference that prevents the receiver from reaching the point of the interception which is what allows the interception.

It's not interference because it was intercepted but it was intercepted because there was interference.

The interference did not aid in the interception at all - which is the entire point here - the interceptor and the interferor are two different people and despite some claims that Gronk is either a) superhuman; b) able to go through people; or c) has a portable transporter, there is ZERO chance Gronk catches this ball if he's not interfered with. If you don't see that, there's no getting you to see it. The point, then, is moot.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The interference did not aid in the interception at all - which is the entire point here - the interceptor and the interferor are two different people and despite some claims that Gronk is either a) superhuman; b) able to go through people; or c) has a portable transporter, there is ZERO chance Gronk catches this ball if he's not interfered with. If you don't see that, there's no getting you to see it. The point, then, is moot.

Do you think that if he's not interfered with Gronk could have broken up the interception? And do you think that's irrelevant? It would be a strange rule that allowed the defense to take out a receiver to make an interception easier. (Though I'm just an interloper from another board and maybe the rule really is that strange).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

Do you think that if he's not interfered with Gronk could have broken up the interception? And do you think that's irrelevant? It would be a strange rule that allowed the defense to take out a receiver to make an interception easier. (Though I'm just an interloper from another board and maybe the rule really is that strange).

To be completely honest, this aspect of the equation, I believe, is not well defined. Someone brought that up earlier and it got me thinking.

I fully agree that the existence of the interceptor (even if he simply bats the ball away) making a play completely in front of the receiver warrants waiving off the interference penalty.

However - it does make for an interesting scenario that you've alluded to, and that I'm not sure what the ruling SHOULD be, much less what it WOULD be.

If the game was not over at this moment - and the officials got together and agreed that the ball was uncatchable by the receiver - BUT the receiver was conceivably close enough to prevent the defender from actually catching the ball ... what's the ruling. MUCH tougher decision there.

That said... I honestly am flabbergasted that ANYONE who is an official is arguing about this call. Other than NE sympathizers, there's no basis for it. I don't think it's even remotely possible that the receiver is able to completely stop his forward momentum and reverse his path and then make up 2 yards within the POINT THREE FOUR SECONDS that elapsed between the first conceivable instant of interference and the instant the ball was caught.

Think about it... the fastest players in the world run a 4.00 40. That's 10 yards in one second, at full speed. So even at full speed TOWARD the ball, it takes .2 seconds to go 2 yards. He was moving AWAY from the ball. Someone expects him to stop, reverse, and go those 2 yards AND go around the defender AND catch the ball. Impossible. Zero point zero zero zero, people.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

That said... I honestly am flabbergasted that ANYONE who is an official is arguing about this call. Other than NE sympathizers, there's no basis for it. I don't think it's even remotely possible that the receiver is able to completely stop his forward momentum and reverse his path and then make up 2 yards within the POINT THREE FOUR SECONDS that elapsed between the first conceivable instant of interference and the instant the ball was caught.

Think about it... the fastest players in the world run a 4.00 40. That's 10 yards in one second, at full speed. So even at full speed TOWARD the ball, it takes .2 seconds to go 2 yards. He was moving AWAY from the ball. Someone expects him to stop, reverse, and go those 2 yards AND go around the defender AND catch the ball. Impossible. Zero point zero zero zero, people.

I do not agree with the premise of how you framed this. Gronk was stopping his momentum already, beginning to come back. Only then was he driven back, not by a little DB but by one of the best LBs in the game. The DB then slid under the newly created space. The DB *probably* could get there anyway, but it's not anywhere near impossible to me.

I accept you see it more definitively than many others do, but I thinks it's quite condescending to say that a large number who don't see it that way are lesser officials. We have two former NFL supervisor of officials who would have called DPI, one who wasn't sure but wouldn't have changed it (Mike Periera) and one who wholeheartedly would have called it DPI (Jim Daopoulos). Are you flabbergasted at them too? Are they NE sympathizers?

It was a tough call made in an high-pressure situation. Both interpretations are valid and justifiable. I would hope we could discuss a very close one in a professional way without this kind of hyperbole.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by scrounge

one who wholeheartedly would have called it DPI (Jim Daopoulos).

To me, his opinion is meaningless. His comments that the other officials stuck themselves into the call is factually untrue, so his whole thought process is questionable.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

If the game was not over at this moment - and the officials got together and agreed that the ball was uncatchable by the receiver - BUT the receiver was conceivably close enough to prevent the defender from actually catching the ball ... what's the ruling. MUCH tougher decision there.

Surely the first clause of that doesn't matter, just because there's no point in preventing the interception after time expires wouldn't change the rules regarding interference. (Even though the defense now values an interception and a breakup equally.)

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by youngump

Surely the first clause of that doesn't matter, just because there's no point in preventing the interception after time expires wouldn't change the rules regarding interference. (Even though the defense now values an interception and a breakup equally.)

Ah, but the fantasy players don't!