The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #181 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 08:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonlj View Post
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.
  #182 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:06am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
If you think that is clear, then when you make that call I hope you can justify it better than what the supervisors or the video tape training has shown. I can tell you if I make that call for the reason you suggest, I probably will not be working very long at that level. You can take that for what it is worth.

Peace
I hope you're not suggesting that he would have ended up in the same spot absent contact.
  #183 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:07am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.
Exactly right.
  #184 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:59am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
  #185 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:09am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
  #186 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
  #187 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #188 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:32am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
  #189 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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.
  #190 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:38am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
  #191 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:44am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
If that's indeed the philosophy, it's not in line with the written rule.
So what? Philosophies are important. Do you want to see a holding flag on every play?
  #192 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:49am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR

Last edited by Raymond; Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:56am.
  #193 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:54am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
So what? Philosophies are important. Do you want to see a holding flag on every play?
What does that have to do with anything?
  #194 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 11:39am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #195 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 11:42am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
What does that have to do with anything?
Because if you called a foul every time someone wrapped their arms around an opponent, you would not have a play without a penalty. You certainly would have a hold on every single running play, because someone hands are outside of the frame for some period of time and are struggling at some point to get away. But like that part of the game, we consider it a foul when their is clear restriction and the opponent is not just getting beat anymore. And that is where the term, "Stronger legs" comes from. It is clear by the feet of both Gronk and the Panther LB that they were not struggling to move in any direction.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Only in England ukumpire Softball 21 Thu Jun 28, 2007 03:41pm
Visiting Boston from England ukumpire Softball 1 Fri Mar 09, 2007 09:37pm
New England at Jacksonville Mark Dexter Football 11 Fri Jan 05, 2007 02:45pm
Camps in the New England Jay R Basketball 11 Sun Apr 02, 2006 07:12pm
England & Ireland ukumpire Softball 0 Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:12pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1