Carolina vs New England last play

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

But that shoulder "tap" is what impeded his progress. It kept him from getting his shoulders in front of his hips, and guaranteed that he would either fall backwards or backstep.

I'm amazed that I'm looking at this video loop and seeing about as clear a case of PI as ever occurs, and you're seeing "not even remotely interference".

[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

[youngump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

If we were to change this up a little bit, and the receiver was not too deep on the pass, but instead the defender just locked him up and drove him sideways and the ball was intercepted by a player standing exactly where he was standing, I think everyone here would have pass interference (with the exception of you?). But your argument here would be exactly as applicable. That's a problem for this line of reasoning.
I'm fine with the reasoning because of the interception, he never could have caught this ball anyway, but the argument that he was not interfered with at all because he didn't fight back seems incredibly specious. Am I missing something about what you're positing?