Carolina vs New England last play

[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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Seriously? They happened about 7 yards apart.

Try watching the play. You'll sound less ridiculous that way.

The point where Gronkowski is initially interfered with and the point where the ball is intercepted are maybe two yards apart.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Seriously? They happened about 7 yards apart.

That's where the interference ended (and where the hard to miss interference happened). The important interference, the hand pushing on the shoulder, starts quite close to the point of interception.

[MD Longhorn]

7 yards is an exaggeration... but 2 yards is about equally as far off.

The spot where the intercepting defender and Gronk pass each other is about 3 yards from where the ball was caught. But the interference doesn't occur until at least a full step and a half later. If you're calling this 2 yards, then I believe you are determining interference on this play FAR earlier than it actually happened. At 2 yards, at most both players are playing handsies (no competent official would call interference on either the receiver swatting the defender's hands or the defender swatting the receiver's - at least not this far before the ball arrived). Gronk takes another step (now 3 1/2 yards from where the ball is eventually caught), and then during the next step as he seems to attempt to slow down (Rut's protestations aside) is when the defender (who failed to slow down) runs into him, begins the interference, and makes it worse by bringing his arms down to pin Gronk's arms. The interference begins 4-5 yards behind where the ball is actually caught - BOTH players took 2 steps in opposite directions before that happened.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

7 yards is an exaggeration... but 2 yards is about equally as far off.

The spot where the intercepting defender and Gronk pass each other is about 3 yards from where the ball was caught. But the interference doesn't occur until at least a full step and a half later. If you're calling this 2 yards, then I believe you are determining interference on this play FAR earlier than it actually happened. At 2 yards, at most both players are playing handsies (no competent official would call interference on either the receiver swatting the defender's hands or the defender swatting the receiver's - at least not this far before the ball arrived). Gronk takes another step (now 3 1/2 yards from where the ball is eventually caught), and then during the next step as he seems to attempt to slow down (Rut's protestations aside) is when the defender (who failed to slow down) runs into him, begins the interference, and makes it worse by bringing his arms down to pin Gronk's arms. The interference begins 4-5 yards behind where the ball is actually caught - BOTH players took 2 steps in opposite directions before that happened.

The interference that matters happens as the intercepting player approaches Gronk. It's the shove to the shoulder that off-balances Gronk. The wrap-up is entirely immaterial, the damage was already done.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The interference that matters happens as the intercepting player approaches Gronk. It's the shove to the shoulder that off-balances Gronk. The wrap-up is entirely immaterial, the damage was already done.

That might explain why you're seeing this play so much differently than everyone else. This shoulder tap is not even remotely interference. You might notice that Gronk actually does almost exactly the same thing an instant before. The interference begins when Gronk's progress is impeded.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

That's where the interference ended (and where the hard to miss interference happened). The important interference, the hand pushing on the shoulder, starts quite close to the point of interception.

That's impossible b/c the ball wasn't even thrown in a path towards Gronk. Not only was it underthrown, but also to the left of Gronk by a couple yards. And the defender didn't actually grab Gronk until they were already engaged for a couple of yards. I don't think merely touching someone qualifies as pass interference.

And didn't the officials on field confer and JUDGE that the interception and interception occurred simultaneously? You have one official looking at one thing, another looking at something else. Then they have to get together and put the picture together. Same as in basketball when you have a foul off-ball on the offense and the officials have to determine if the foul occurred before or after the shot was released.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's impossible b/c the ball wasn't even thrown in a path towards Gronk. Not only was it underthrown, but also to the left of Gronk by a couple yards. And the defender didn't actually grab Gronk until they were already engaged for a couple of yards. I don't think merely touching someone qualifies as pass interference.

And didn't the officials on field confer and JUDGE that the interception and interception occurred simultaneously? You have one official looking at one thing, another looking at something else. Then they have to get together and put the picture together. Same as in basketball when you have a foul off-ball on the offense and the officials have to determine if the foul occurred before or after the shot was released.

That was the officials on-field interpretation, which is clearly disproved on video.

The interference started before the grab. It happened immediately when Gronkowski was shoved.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That was the officials on-field interpretation, which is clearly disproved on video.

The interference started before the grab. It happened immediately when Gronkowski was shoved.

So what should the officials have done differently based on the information they had at the time?

I've watched the video a few times, not seeing the shove you are referencing. I see a grab a split second (in slow motion, not real speed) before the interception. I also see Gronk going one direction and he clearly would not have made it back to the ball even with no defender. As someone who is 6'5"/240lbs himself, I can tell you that the laws of inertia especially apply to men of my size.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That was the officials on-field interpretation, which is clearly disproved on video.

The interference started before the grab. It happened immediately when Gronkowski was shoved.

What was disproved? You have little understanding of the rule and that is obvious. So what was disproved by the video? That Gronk never made an attempt back to the ball? Because that is the biggest part of this situation if you ask me.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

Regardless how far behind/beyond him? Or how much time between? If so, that philosophy materially changes the rule!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Regardless how far behind/beyond him? Or how much time between? If so, that philosophy materially changes the rule!

No it doesn't. You just do not understand the philosophy. Hardly any rule does not have some kind of philosophy as to how to rule on something. Officials at the higher levels tend to understand that better than guys you work high school. High school officials often do not have the same level of training or scrutiny or accountability.

Peace

[zm1283]

I want you guys in the "No DPI" camp on the NE/Carolina play to watch this play starting at the 4:00 mark in the video:

GameDay: Denver Broncos vs. New England Patriots highlights - NFL Videos

The Denver receiver is running a "go" route straight down the field. Talib for NE does hold the receiver, but Manning severely underthrows the ball and there is zero chance the receiver would have caught it. It gets intercepted, but they stick with the holding call.

How is this any different than last week's play? I thought if the ball was underthrown and not catchable by the offensive player and it was intercepted, they "philosophy" was to ignore the defensive penalty. When Talib catches Manning's underthrown pass he is eight yards in front of the receiver who was running the complete opposite direction.

Edit: Go to 5:20 and watch the PI no-call when the Patriots have the ball in OT also. How is that not DPI?