Carolina vs New England last play

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I would probably have DPI on this at the level of ball I work. My guess is that they deemed the contact as incidental to the defensive play being made. Not saying I agree with that but it's my best guess.

I think it is a miss. Just like it was a miss when they let Brady run all over the field screaming at everyone afterwards.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think it is a miss. Just like it was a miss when they let Brady run all over the field screaming at everyone afterwards.

Agree on both points.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The first play in question has nothing to do with the play we are discussing in this thread. The play you are showing is a clear hold for a jersey grab that clearly restricts the movement of the receiver to go up field. The legs of the receiver clearly are stopped or altered in order to keep the defender in an advantageous position. And that is why it was called. The Gronk play had no restriction in the movement if you look at his legs. He did not change direction or stopped completely. If no arms were around Gronk, you would not even think to call a foul. That is why that play is not the same as the play last week.

But he eventually does go up field and the ball is thrown nowhere near him.

The contention that Gronk was not restricted at all is not universally shared. Even some officials (Some at very high levels) don't agree with you.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

But he eventually does go up field and the ball is thrown nowhere near him.

The contention that Gronk was not restricted at all is not universally shared. Even some officials (Some at very high levels) don't agree with you.

I don't agree with the contention that Gronk was not restricted. I do agree with the contention that it didn't matter, by rule, because of the interception that occurred before the ball got to the DPI location.

The difference is that with holding, being "catchable" isn't a factor like it is with DPI.

With DPI, it must be catchable to be DPI. The guideline from the league to officials is if the ball is intercepted before it reaches the point of the DPI, it wasn't catchable (by rule.) Therefore no DPI. That's no an issue with holding.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

But he eventually does go up field and the ball is thrown nowhere near him.

The contention that Gronk was not restricted at all is not universally shared. Even some officials (Some at very high levels) don't agree with you.

You have to prove you were restricted by your movement. Gronk never changed direction or showed a struggle. He kept going in the same direction. If you are truly restricted show me. These guys act when they are barely touched and this big guy who is physical as anyone just keeps moving in the same direction? Again, I need more and so do those at the higher levels. And the play you referenced that receiver clearly showed he was getting held.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You have to prove you were restricted by your movement. Gronk never changed direction or showed a struggle. He kept going in the same direction. If you are truly restricted show me.

What could he possibly show you? Once his shoulders are pushed back, the only way he can keep from falling backwards is to move his feet backwards. As it was, he did a little of both. Would it have looked more like a struggle if he hadn't tried to stay on his feet, and just fallen on his butt where he'd been standing? Or would it have looked more like a struggle if he'd moved his feet backward fast enough to stay erect? Looks like you want players to draw fouls by play acting, only it's not even clear which way you want them to act!

He was in the process of changing direction when he was hit. His next move was to move his upper body forward, but that movement was prevented by the opponent's pushing him on his shoulders.

And need I remind others in this thread that "catchable" means possible to catch, not "likely"? When the long haired player came in to intercept the ball, you are not to judge whether his presence would've made it merely difficult for the interfered-with player to catch the ball, only whether it would've been impossible. The purpose of the interference rule is to keep opponents from using contact to deprive one of the opp'ty or lessen one's ability to catch the ball; it's not to be presumed that a catch would have been made in the absence of the contact. If a "would've been caught" standard were applicable generally to pass interference fouls, then you'd see all sorts of head-scratching and appeals to the players' demonstrated abilities as receivers.

In case you're wondering, I had no interest in the teams or even knowledge of this game, and am judging solely by the video loop that's been posted here.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What could he possibly show you? Once his shoulders are pushed back, the only way he can keep from falling backwards is to move his feet backwards. As it was, he did a little of both. Would it have looked more like a struggle if he hadn't tried to stay on his feet, and just fallen on his butt where he'd been standing? Or would it have looked more like a struggle if he'd moved his feet backward fast enough to stay erect? Looks like you want players to draw fouls by play acting, only it's not even clear which way you want them to act!

He was in the process of changing direction when he was hit. His next move was to move his upper body forward, but that movement was prevented by the opponent's pushing him on his shoulders.

And need I remind others in this thread that "catchable" means possible to catch, not "likely"? When the long haired player came in to intercept the ball, you are not to judge whether his presence would've made it merely difficult for the interfered-with player to catch the ball, only whether it would've been impossible. The purpose of the interference rule is to keep opponents from using contact to deprive one of the opp'ty or lessen one's ability to catch the ball; it's not to be presumed that a catch would have been made in the absence of the contact. If a "would've been caught" standard were applicable generally to pass interference fouls, then you'd see all sorts of head-scratching and appeals to the players' demonstrated abilities as receivers.

In case you're wondering, I had no interest in the teams or even knowledge of this game, and am judging solely by the video loop that's been posted here.

The problem the people who are arguing for DPI on this play are failing to recognize is the actions by Gronk are largely irrelevant. Don't apply normal DPI logic and categories. As JRut has stated very clearly several times, the philosophy at the NFL level (and I've heard at the NCAA level...not sure if that's extended across all conferences) is this kind of contact is ignored when the pass is underthrown and intercepted. In most cases whether he could recover and get to the ball absent the contact is not relevant. Don't make this harder than it has to be.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

The problem the people who are arguing for DPI on this play are failing to recognize is the actions by Gronk are largely irrelevant. Don't apply normal DPI logic and categories. As JRut has stated very clearly several times, the philosophy at the NFL level (and I've heard at the NCAA level...not sure if that's extended across all conferences) is this kind of contact is ignored when the pass is underthrown and intercepted. In most cases whether he could recover and get to the ball absent the contact is not relevant. Don't make this harder than it has to be.

If that's indeed the philosophy, it's not in line with the written rule.

You're saying that one defender could tackle the receiver and allow a second defender to make an uncontested interception that the receiver could otherwise have made a play on.

And JRutledge, Gronkowski clearly was changing direction towards the ball until he was shoved and dragged through the end zone.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

when the pass is underthrown

Ultimately, this is the point of contention. I don't think the pass was underthrown. Had Gronk not been interfered with, I believe he would have been at the point of interception at the time of interception. (And in fact, we have a clip from a TV show that shows the physics of the matter which confirm this opinion.)

I understand ignoring interference when the ball is caught 10 yards in front of the interference. I don't agree with ignoring interference that occurs in the immediate vicinity of a catch that allows a second defender an uncontested interception.

As I said before, if they got this right by interpretation, the interpretation is unfair.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by zm1283

But he eventually does go up field and the ball is thrown nowhere near him.

By rule, it doesn't matter. The ball doesn't even have to be thrown.

Holding and DPI are not the same thing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Just like it was a miss when they let Brady run all over the field screaming at everyone afterwards.

I do not think that is a miss, I think they are more tolerant of players and coaches at that level.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think that is a miss, I think they are more tolerant of players and coaches at that level.

Peace

Maybe so, but they shouldn't be. He was out of control and made them look bad.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

Maybe so, but they shouldn't be. He was out of control and made them look bad.

No question, Brady was out of control, but the only one he made "look bad" was himself. The Referee he was trying to berate maintained his poise and looked like most adults do when dealing with an irate child.

Originally Posted by ajmc

No question, Brady was out of control, but the only one he made "look bad" was himself. The Referee he was trying to berate maintained his poise and looked like most adults do when dealing with an irate child.

Great point.