Carolina vs New England last play

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by youngump

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?).

I have had several people agree with me about what Gronk was not doing, so do not be so sure I am alone on this one.

Originally Posted by youngump

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?

Well then you need to work more college ball or watch the NCAA videos. Because the level of contact and how it affected the play is often talked about. And at least for who I worked with it is not unusual to have a play be reviewed and it suggested that the call was "Too technical" from the supervisors on things like these. And if the action does not fit the specific categories, you will get dinged or downgraded for not following the philosophy. And that is why this discussion is often differnet with guys who primarily work HS and those that work college are often different on these matters.

Peace

[youngump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have had several people agree with me about what Gronk was not doing, so do not be so sure I am alone on this one.

Maybe you are not alone but I haven't caught anybody who seems to agree that what Gronk did after the contact is relevant. To be clear in my example play, you do not have interference solely because the receiver did nothing to show he was trying to stay in place?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well then you need to work more college ball or watch the NCAA videos. Because the level of contact and how it affected the play is often talked about. And at least for who I worked with it is not unusual to have a play be reviewed and it suggested that the call was "Too technical" from the supervisors on things like these. And if the action does not fit the specific categories, you will get dinged or downgraded for not following the philosophy. And that is why this discussion is often differnet with guys who primarily work HS and those that work college are often different on these matters.
Peace

Full disclosure, I'm not a football umpire, I'm an interloper from another board here at the forum. But I've been interloping for several years.

I don't have a problem with the idea that we need to see how the contact impacted the play. What I have a problem with is the contention that a receiver having been hit and as a result of being hit(*) not having a play has to still try and drive his defender back to get a flag from you. I'm not 100% sure that is even what you're saying, but insofar as it is, it doesn't feel right.

(*) That's not this play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by youngump

Maybe you are not alone but I haven't caught anybody who seems to agree that what Gronk did after the contact is relevant. To be clear in my example play, you do not have interference solely because the receiver did nothing to show he was trying to stay in place?

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not a foul because Gronk did not do anything to show he was being held. Arms around someone is not enough in a lot of passing plays. Just like arms extended are not enough for a push off. You have to gain some advantage.

Originally Posted by youngump

Full disclosure, I'm not a football umpire, I'm an interloper from another board here at the forum. But I've been interloping for several years..

And that is telling. You have never had to make a call for any of these types of plays and if you did, you would not be working much varsity at least in my experience if you did not consider all the elements of a play. And certainly you would not be at the college level long if what you suggest is all it takes to get a foul in this case.

Originally Posted by youngump

I don't have a problem with the idea that we need to see how the contact impacted the play. What I have a problem with is the contention that a receiver having been hit and as a result of being hit(*) not having a play has to still try and drive his defender back to get a flag from you. I'm not 100% sure that is even what you're saying, but insofar as it is, it doesn't feel right.

(*) That's not this play.

Well I have a problem with someone that does not officiate the sport at all, telling me or others how to call the game or why we make the calls we do. I get it if you want understanding, but you are not in a position to tell me why I should or should not make a particular call. Because you act like I am the one making the philosophy or going alone on this position. I clearly am not and I would not be working college at all if I made calls on the basis you are suggesting here.

Peace

[youngump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not a foul because Gronk did not do anything to show he was being held. Arms around someone is not enough in a lot of passing plays. Just like arms extended are not enough for a push off. You have to gain some advantage.




And that is telling. You have never had to make a call for any of these types of plays and if you did, you would not be working much varsity at least in my experience if you did not consider all the elements of a play. And certainly you would not be at the college level long if what you suggest is all it takes to get a foul in this case.



Well I have a problem with someone that does not officiate the sport at all, telling me or others how to call the game or why we make the calls we do. I get it if you want understanding, but you are not in a position to tell me why I should or should not make a particular call. Because you act like I am the one making the philosophy or going alone on this position. I clearly am not and I would not be working college at all if I made calls on the basis you are suggesting here.

Peace

I'm not telling you have to call the game nor why you make the calls you make. I do come here for 2 reasons. 1. I enjoy the game more the better I understand it. 2. There's a lot of stuff with cross-applicability.
I weigh in for a different reason which is that I want more clarity on a point or I find a logical inconsistency in another persons position. This is one of those two and I'm not sure which because you're not clearly answering my question. If this ball had been clearly catchable, would you not have PI? And then to everybody else I'll ask, is there anyone else here who agrees with that?
My reading of this thread is that almost everybody has this as PI with an uncatchable ball, therefore no flag. A few people have a maybe catchable ball. A few people (not sure any are actually officials) have a catchable ball. And then there is your position which is that you don't appear to believe he was interfered with. I think I may be oversimplifying your position, but frankly you aren't doing a good job clarifying it to me and that is a reflection of communication not College Football officiating.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not a foul because Gronk did not do anything to show he was being held. Arms around someone is not enough in a lot of passing plays. Just like arms extended are not enough for a push off. You have to gain some advantage.

So if the ball was thrown on target to Gronk and the other DB who intercepted the ball wasn't there, you would not have PI on Carolina? From reading the thread, that seems to be what you're saying.

I don't agree that the pass was uncatchable, but I can sort of buy the reasoning, although I don't agree with it since we have proof on video that NFL officials don't always follow this "philosophy".

I do however have a problem with an official saying Gronk wasn't even interfered with, even if the pass was on target. That's just making sh*t up to justify this whole thing.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not a foul because Gronk did not do anything to show he was being held. Arms around someone is not enough in a lot of passing plays. Just like arms extended are not enough for a push off. You have to gain some advantage.

I think you know this is baloney. A player being fouled (held in this case) does not need to struggle to get away to prove to the official a disadvantage is occurring. In every sport there are fouls that are illegal in and of themselves, even if we do not see a disadvantage.

In the Gronk play he was being fouled. If the ball had not been intercepted, that foul would have been called. The official obviously thought there was a potential disadvantage at play here....otherwise he would not have thrown the flag.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

What I have a problem with is the contention that a receiver having been hit and as a result of being hit(*) not having a play has to still try and drive his defender back to get a flag from you. I'm not 100% sure that is even what you're saying, but insofar as it is, it doesn't feel right.

(*) That's not this play.

It seems to me that you're taking his comments and projecting it in a way that Jeff never meant to project it at all. I don't believe he's saying that ANY receiver who is hit and because of that hit has no play on the ball must then make some effort to get through the interference to get to that ball. I believe he's saying that in THIS case, the receiver had no chance to get to the ball and had already given up at the point of the potential interference. BIG difference.