Carolina vs New England last play

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

You are telling me and others how to call a game you do not officiate. It is almost pointless talking to you about this just with that fact alone. And it is really pointless when I am telling you from my experience in training, discussions or actual field experience what these kinds of calls are made based off of. It is OK to disagree, but you are acting like you have the direct experience to even debate this intelligently. I would not go to the Volleyball site and debate a rule that was not enforced when I have never worked a single volleyball game in my life. And I would trust those that were officiating they know more than me in that area of officiating.

Peace

[youngump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are telling me and others how to call a game you do not officiate. It is almost pointless talking to you about this just with that fact alone. And it is really pointless when I am telling you from my experience in training, discussions or actual field experience what these kinds of calls are made based off of. It is OK to disagree, but you are acting like you have the direct experience to even debate this intelligently. I would not go to the Volleyball site and debate a rule that was not enforced when I have never worked a single volleyball game in my life. And I would trust those that were officiating they know more than me in that area of officiating.

Peace

You seem to be confusing my position with those of others here. I have not (I just went back and read them again) posited anything about how this should be called. I have made a couple of contentions about the way you were arguing things and the way I think the rule should be. I could see how the latter might appear to be an argument about how to call it.(*)
You seem to be at odds with the other officials here, not as to result, but as to how you go there. And I should like to understand more about it, but frankly you seem to be unable to calmly discuss it. Given the tenor of some of the other discussions that are occurring at the same time, that's not necessarily unreasonable but as a result I'm not going to try to clarify your position any further, either for my own benefit or for the benefit of others.

(*) Frankly, the idea that only officials should have a take on how a play should be called is ridiculous. Yes we will often have rulings and philosophies that will dictate how it is called. But should and is are not the same word for a reason.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

Phrases like "maybe catchable" I find funny here. A ruling of uncatchable ball means you are certain the ball could not have been caught by the interfered-with player. If you have any doubt as to whether the ball was uncatchable, it wasn't uncatchable; the provision was not meant to deal with close cases. What I find especially surprising is that some of you look at that video and are certain the ball was uncatchable. I doubt you'd be saying so if you'd been in the position of that back judge, or any other official on that field; I think you're bending over backwards to try to see the final ruling as correct.

I also don't believe the "philosophy" of the intercepted ball as has been stated in this thread was meant to be a material change in the rule. I think those of you invoking that philosophy are mistakenly applying it, leaving out a detail that you were probably told. I'm sure that whoever promulgated that philosophy meant that you need not project the trajectory of the ball beyond the point at which it was intercepted or knocked away in determining whether the ball was catchable, and also that if the pass was touched before or simultaneously with the player-opponent contact, there was no interference. I'm sure they did not mean that the mere occurrence of such an interception or deflection at any point in space and time behind the spot at which the interference took place vitiated an interference call.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

I think you need to realize that I could give a darn what you buy. I do not work for you or have to answer to you about any philosophy I apply in games. So if you do not want to accept what I told you, then don't. When you work your games, then you can use whatever philosophies you choose. The great thing about officiating is this is a competitive adventure. If someone does not like the way we do things, they can find someone else and they will find someone else. And at that level those guys are evaluated on every play as individuals and as a crew. And for some reason they picked up the flag despite what you or I think about the call.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

You clearly don't work football. One of the indicators of holding is material restriction. If I grab onto your jersey, but you don't pull away from me showing clear, material restriction, it's simply not holding.

You know, that philosophy thing again.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

You clearly don't work football. One of the indicators of holding is material restriction. If I grab onto your jersey, but you don't pull away from me showing clear, material restriction, it's simply not holding.

You know, that philosophy thing again.

Did you have restriction on this play?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

You clearly don't work football. One of the indicators of holding is material restriction. If I grab onto your jersey, but you don't pull away from me showing clear, material restriction, it's simply not holding.

You know, that philosophy thing again.

Honestly, this concept applies to virtually all contact sports. Without advantage, contact is rarely a foul (basketball, football, soccer, chess).

Note, I think the advantage in the contact on Gronk was obvious, and would have been DPI had the pass not been intercepted.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

Not only that, but making an apparent struggle a factor in how you rule invites players to act fouled.