The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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".
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 04:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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".
If this ball is not intercepted, I most definitely have interference. It's the fact that a defender prevented a ball from reaching the receiver (and not the defender who made the prospective interference) that makes it not catchable.

That "tap" is nothing. The interference is 1 1/2 steps later.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


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 12:39pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1