Carolina vs New England last play

[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

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

He was initially restricted within two yards of the spot where the ball was picked off as he started to change direction. He was then physically forced to the back of the endzone.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

He was initially restricted within two yards of the spot where the ball was picked off as he started to change direction. He was then physically forced to the back of the endzone.

That is your opinion and I certainly disagree. To be restricted you have to do something to show you are restricted. Keep running away form the ball and your legs never change direction or plant is not being restricted. Heck that has nothing to do with being restricted because someone's arms are around or on you. No different than a block and the person being blocked never tries to get away.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is your opinion and I certainly disagree. To be restricted you have to do something to show you are restricted. Keep running away form the ball and your legs never change direction or plant is not being restricted. Heck that has nothing to do with being restricted because someone's arms are around or on you. No different than a block and the person being blocked never tries to get away.

Peace

You mean being physically forced to make a complete change of direction doesn't count as a restriction for you?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

You mean being physically forced to make a complete change of direction doesn't count as a restriction for you?

Gronk is bigger, stronger and faster then the guy that was guarding him. I think if he was restricted, I would see more than what I saw to call a foul. His legs never stopped and you never saw a struggle in his movement in any direction. Then again this is what we are taught all the time at the college level and this was does not fit the categories listed to call DPI. I have seen hundreds of play like this and to call this and the ball not getting there would be considered "too technical" by many.

And you can keep debating this, but that is not going to change my mind. I have been doing this long enough to know why I do or do not call thing. And if I was the BJ in this case, I would be happy I was talked off of this call.

Peace

[zm1283]

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.

That has not been true in the past in the NFL. See Detroit vs. Cleveland in 2009.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Gronk is bigger, stronger and faster then the guy that was guarding him. I think if he was restricted, I would see more than what I saw to call a foul. His legs never stopped and you never saw a struggle in his movement in any direction.

I don't care how strong you are, once your shoulders are behind your hips while your knees are already somewhat flexed (but not enough to do the limbo) and your feet forward, you're hitting the ground. Look at the video as he receives that shoulder shove and tell me how he could possibly have recovered from it. If his lower body had not already started forward towards the ball, then probably he'd've made the struggle vs. the opponent obvious, but at the time he was hit he had no choice but to fall backward.

[zm1283]

It's not like Luke Kuechly is a 6', 195 pound cornerback. He is 6'3" and 235 himself. I don't know how you can consider it a total stretch that he would be able to move impede Gronk if he wanted to.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

"Restriction" is a consideration for holding. It doesn't have to be one for interference. What sealed the play as I can see from that video loop is not holding, but the initial push that was given by an opponent to A87 to knock him off balance.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

"Restriction" is a consideration for holding. It doesn't have to be one for interference. What sealed the play as I can see from that video loop is not holding, but the initial push that was given by an opponent to A87 to knock him off balance.

Robert, there are guidelines the NCAA uses that puts PI into about 6 categories. Each category described what constitutes PI and in order to call PI, you the action must fit into such category. I am almost positive that these came from the NFL and their philosophies.

And I looked it up, these categories are in the CCA Manual on page 27. There are 6 categories for DPI. There are 4 categories for OPI. And I know the NFL uses the same guidelines as these have been discussed by the association I work with and there are both NFL officials and NFL evaluators in this group. And one of the NFL evaluators is the person I work for in D3 in my area.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Robert, there are guidelines the NCAA uses that puts PI into about 6 categories. Each category described what constitutes PI and in order to call PI, you the action must fit into such category. I am almost positive that these came from the NFL and their philosophies.

And I looked it up, these categories are in the CCA Manual on page 27. There are 6 categories for DPI. There are 4 categories for OPI. And I know the NFL uses the same guidelines as these have been discussed by the association I work with and there are both NFL officials and NFL evaluators in this group. And one of the NFL evaluators is the person I work for in D3 in my area.

Peace

Just to clarify, do you have DPI on this play if the defender who intercepted it isn't there?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Just to clarify, do you have DPI on this play if the defender who intercepted it isn't there?

Yes. The ball would have gone much further, and could conceivably have been caught by the receiver before it made it to the ground.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Just to clarify, do you have DPI on this play if the defender who intercepted it isn't there?

Very likely because the facts are now changed. The philosophy I've been taught (again at the NCAA level but as JRut states likely comes from the NFL) is if a pass is underthrown and a separate player intercepts the ball, the contact behind him is ignored. It's a simple philosophy and applies on this play.

If the pass is not intercepted you have different facts on the play. Since you can now consider the contact the category would be early contact not playing the ball.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Very likely because the facts are now changed. The philosophy I've been taught (again at the NCAA level but as JRut states likely comes from the NFL) is if a pass is underthrown and a separate player intercepts the ball, the contact behind him is ignored. It's a simple philosophy and applies on this play.

If the pass is not intercepted you have different facts on the play. Since you can now consider the contact the category would be early contact not playing the ball.

I understand the philosophy, but I don't think it applies on this play.

The intercepting defender and the interference happened almost right next to each other, within a couple yards.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I understand the philosophy, but I don't think it applies on this play.

The intercepting defender and the interference happened almost right next to each other, within a couple yards.

Seriously? They happened about 7 yards apart.