Carolina vs New England last play
 

I assumed this thread would already be here when I got to work. Shocked it's not.

Thoughts on the final non-penalty of the game?

Personally, I think they got the call right. The only thing they did poorly was the R's announcement of it and the sprinting off the field. I thought the BJ or FJ (whichever flagged the INT) did a great job of immediately going for help on the uncatchable part.

The fact that every announcer on the planet feels it was a bad call only cements the call's correctness for me. :)

And Mike Pereira:

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/stat...59742775902208

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/stat...60199015522305

And at least one former Super Bowl official/Supervisor of Officials:

https://twitter.com/RefereeJimD

Gerald Austin agreed, MP and JD disagree. Interesting but since MP WAS the supervisor of officials, I think he carries the most weight.

I am a Panthers fan. That being said, I understand the uncatchable part but Gronk could have made a move back to the ball save for the hold by Kuechly so I think the flag was valid. Gronk obviously didn't put on a show like Olsen did earlier in the quarter and that may have cost him. Why bail him out with a flag when he didn't really do anything to help himself get out of it.

I can see it either way.

The no-call on the leg whip against Johnson sucked. The PI during the Pats last drive, I didn't get a look at.

The flag was thrown because the guy though their was a penalty.

I know they don't review this with instant replay(nor should they, inmnho) but, there certainly is not conclusive video evidence that the ball is un-catchable.

There is evidence that it might have been un-catchable or maybe even that it was probably un-catchable.

I thought that Gronk was starting to stop and had at least a reasonable chance of coming back if Kuechly didn't drive him back 6 yards. Only then did the DB slip under, but I'm not sure he could have done so if Gronk was able to come back unimpeded. At a minimum, I don't think that flag should have been picked up once thrown. An unfortunate and IMO incorrect ending to a great game.

Honestly, I thought it was the right ruling. Gronk is a great athlete, but I don't see how he comes back and gets that poorly thrown pass even if he's unimpeded.

Brady said a couple of things in the presser that caught my attention.
1. "I didn't see the play..."
Interesting, because he was verbally assaulting the officials on the way off the field; but he didn't see the play.

2. He admitted he should have thrown the ball better. He makes a good throw, and they get one more play.

Gronkowski is 6'6, 265 pounds, no way he was prevented to come back to a ball by a defensive back or most linebackers. Please, if he wanted the call he could have made an effort to come back to the football. I do not call those kinds of plays until the defender is preventing movement. There were just arms around him, that is never a foul in itself. It is when you are restricted from movement, then it is a foul. Gronk was moving away from the ball, not back to the ball.

Peace

I could have predicted this post 12 hours ago.

Putting your arms around a receiver while the ball is in flight toward them is never a foul in itself? I would bet we can find plenty of cases to prove otherwise.

Yes, Gronk is big (not that much bigger than Kuechly, though, about 30 lbs), but he was just starting to slow and come back while Kuechly was charging full into him, driving him back. Gronk isn't winning the physics of that battle. He had no chance to come back with Kuechly driving him back.

You certainly have an... interesting... way of seeing things.

I agree with scrounge. At the very least there's no way the flag should have been picked up after it was thrown.

Sorry, but it was either uncatchable or it wasn't. They pick up flags all the time for this reason; why is it not acceptable here?

It almost sounds like Mark Brunell on Sports Center, "You gotta call something here. Give me something."

It wasn't "clearly uncatchable" as Gerry Austin tried to claim. So the flag should have remained.

+1

I'm not disputing their ability to pick it up, of course, I'm disputing the judgment that it was uncatchable. I think it was well within the bounds of uncertainty that picking up the flag was the wrong thing to do.

Interesting. I just don't see how Gronk would have been able to stop on a dime and come back to make that catch, even without the contact.

I agreed with Austin. Austin also indicated that the rule was specifically applicable because the pass was "intercepted or knocked down" short of the receiver's location.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.hip...2020_50_43.gif

The contact starts pretty close to where the ball was picked off, and he was trying to play the ball when the defender drove him back through the end zone. The more I watch that, the more I wonder what they were thinking picking the flag up.

Well the rule (NFL 8-5-3c) doesn't say "clearly uncatchable", it says "uncatchable". I agree with all the posters saying the flag should not have been thrown in the first place. However, the object is to get the call right and if, in the officials judgement, the ball was intercepted too far away from Gronk for the holding/pass interference to matter, then the flag should have been picked up.

Flags are picked up all the time. If there is defensive holding on a punt and a fair catch is signalled and caught, those flags are picked up. This parallels the situation last night, due to the interception and/or ball being batted down. If the ball is never intercepted or batted down and passes near Gronk at all, this penalty is easily enforced.

Edit: Also important to note that Mike Periera disagreed with the flag being picked up once thrown, however I think he does agree with the call on the field.

The ball was intercepted so far away from him because he was dragged away from the play.

A flag was thrown. The ball wasn't uncatchable, considering where the contact began. If there's ANY chance he gets to that ball, the flag needs to stick.

I see nothing that would warrant picking the flag up. And then to run off the field without offering an explanation at all makes it seem that much worse.

The route is undercut by the DB before Kuchely makes meaningful holding/pass interference with Gronk.

Gronk seems to continue on his route due to his momentum (with only a little dragging going on). I don't see Gronk struggling to return to challenge the interception.

Well if the officials decided the interception rendered the potential pass interference or holding contact incidental, would that warrant picking up the flag? Cuz that's what they did.

This.

If Gronk makes a an effort to reverse his momentum towards the ball, the flag may well have stuck.

So are you saying any time a pass is intercepted there should never be PI called? The call that all the time. Just because the pass ended in an INT does not negate the restrictions on the offense and defense when the pass is in the air...

The official NFL rule book contains only one reference to the term “uncatchable.” Rule 8, Section 5, Article 3(c) identifies as a permissible act “[c]ontact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.”

I've come around on this play myself from first being DPI to now thinking that this was not only the right call but that the play was well officiated all around.

The B made the only call he could, which was that of DPI. He is not in a good position I don't think to rule on the catchability of the pass.

After the play, he is immediately coming in looking for additional information. The S and the U both come in immediately to provide that information. The flag is then picked up, the announcement is made and the game is over.

Living with a flag here because it was thrown would mean ignoring additional information which is clearly what we should not be doing on a play. We are constantly being taught that if another official has information to help take another off of a flag, we should do so. What better time than the last play of the game?

As to the actual catchability of the pass, I do not think that it was catchable. Gronkowski made no attempt at all to get back to the ball and the pass was well under thrown resulting in it being picked up before it came close to reaching him. I think his own momentum carried him further away from the spot where the ball was going to end up.

Note that Mike P. said that the argument could be made that the pass was uncatchable but that the flag was thrown so they should go with a penalty. Frankly I find that line of thinking a little baffling, especially if the end goal is to get the call right.

Gerald Austin, also a supervisor of officials in CUSA, thinks they made the right call. They disagree, just like we do here.

It does if the receiver who was interfered with never would have had a chance to catch the ball.

The Referee did offer an explanation in his final announcement.

Yeah I screwed that up. My fault.

Certainly not. Let's say the DB had never been there, and the ball was instead intercepted by the LB covering Gronk. That interception would not stand due to the prior pass interference. In this case however, it is a secondary defender that intercepts the ball before it eve gets near Gronk.

Had this pass been intercepted at the back of the endzone after flying past Gronk, pass interference/holding would have been called and enforced. Had the defender simply tipped the ball instead of catching, pass interference/holding would have been called and enforced. The pass was underthrown and intercepted before it reached Gronk, and based on the judgement of the officials Gronk did not have a chance to contend for the ball, thus rendering it "clearly uncatchable".

"There is no foul" isn't an explanation.

This. Same thing happened in an Auburn - LSU game a few years ago, and the explanation was that the ball was uncatchable due to the INT being well before the spot of the PI.

Great thoughts here. I agree that it was handled extremely well given the circumstances. The B has to throw that flag at the time of the holding/pass interference. To simply huddle and then toss a flag after determining Gronk could have caught the pass would be an incredibly hard sell. Better to sell the flag at the spot, then ask for help. You see in the video that the B is immediately calling for help. I would certainly hope he is not downgraded, he made the best of an extremely tight situation.

That is all he is required to do. Long-winded Ed Hochuli-esque explanations are not the norm among white hats. They don't have to offer their reasoning at the time, they just have to communicate 1) what their call was, and 2) the result of the call. The R did both in his announcement.

And I think many of us could have predicted this response from you. The argument style of taking one sentence someone says and magnifying that statement with "always" or "never" is rarely conducive to good discussion. He didn't say never. He didn't mean never.

On THIS play, the receiver makes no effort to catch this ball - had he done so, and then been prevented from doing so, the case might be different. OTOH, it might not - at the moment the defender first contacts the receiver, there is already a defender heading toward the ball in between the receiver (who is heading away from it) and the ball. The existence of that defender (whether he catches it or not) makes it impossible that the receiver would have ever had a chance to catch this ball. To do so, he would have had to go through the defender covering him (possible OPI) and then gone through the defender who actually caught the ball (definite OPI). There is zero chance this receiver could have caught this ball given the existence of the defender who actually caught it.

Thanks for the video. Look at the defender who caught the ball and where he is when Gronk is first contacted by the other defender. He is already closer to the ball than Gronk, and he is headed toward the ball, while Gronk is heading away. There's no chance for the receiver to catch this ball at all.

He didn't, really. This is the only thing I think they did poorly. R merely says, "There is no flag for interference. The game is over."

I think you can make the case he was slowing to come back to the ball, but could not due to the contact. Seriously, if the penalty was called, I bet most who now disagree would be agreeing with the call. I think you can make the case either way. This is not cut and dry. Not no chance. You could say that every ball that is not caught is technically "uncatchable" there is not cut and dry response here.

I don't think anyone can say that there was "No Chance" Gronkowski could have caught the ball...

Technically correct isn't the best way. How hard would it have been to say "there is no foul for pass interference. The pass was uncatchable" like most other referees?

I agree. He was clearly making an attempt at the ball when the defender dragged him through the end zone.

I don't think it was that clear. That was a horrible pass (according to the guy who threw it) and Gronk was not getting to it.

Again, no way he turns on a dime and gets back to go through the guy who caught it; even without the defender draped all over him. His momentum was taking him in the opposite direction. He's not a point guard.

My point is it is not that clear. Nothing about the play is cut and dry. I have seen flags in the NFL on poorly thrown balls. I just think this is not as cut and dry as is being portrayed by some. It will be interested to see what the league says tonight.

I have more of a problem with them picking the flag up than with the fact that DPI wasn't ultimately called. You could argue that it wasn't catchable, although I don't think that was infinitely clear, especially in real time. I just don't like how flags are picked up on judgment calls in football and it seems pretty unique to that sport. To top it off they pick the flag up and then don't explain why it isn't DPI when the BJ emphatically threw his flag indicating such.

Look at how Gronk started to turn back right before Kuechly started driving him. Maybe he screens the DB off, maybe he doesn't. This isn't some run of the mill TE, it's a 6'7" freak who's made some amazing catches before. I don't know if he could beat the DB to the ball, but no way I could say definitively that he couldn't. He didn't even get the chance. The only reason he's heading away is that one of the best LB's in the game is driving him back with all his force. Maybe Gronk might not have made it back, but was there a 20% chance? 10% chance? It strikes me as hyperbole to say 0%. And if Gronk was denied a legitimate chance at the ball by illegal contact, it's gotta be DPI in my opinion.

I can understand but not agree with others saying its a good no call, but there's nothing at all clear cut about this. Many here see it one way, others another. On the expert front, we've got Jerry Austin saying good no call, Mike Periera split, and Jim Daopoulos saying DPI.

What's legitimate? 60%? 30? 5?

So am I, but the folks at ESPN have already invested quite a bit of time denigrating the call. I don't think the NFL announcement will make a difference either way.

That should be the last thing that you should have a problem with. Flags are often picked up when one official sees part of a play and (properly, I might add) throws the flag, but another official sees another part of the play and has information that renders the flag no longer a penalty. Happens all the time. It SHOULD happen. You should notice that the official who threw the flag IMMEDIATELY went to his partner for additional information.

About the only time they routinely go the other way around (one official sees part, DOESN'T flag, then goes to a 2nd official for the other part of the play and THEN they flag it) is intentional grounding.

I hear you on the rest... but this part is just wrong. He's heading away because that's the direction he was heading before any contact at all. Could he have stopped without the contact? Maybe. Probably not, but maybe. Could he have stopped, reversed, and went the other direction by 4 yards? Heck no. Could he have stopped, reversed, clicked on ghost-mode, passed through the defender who caught the ball, unclicked ghost-mode, rematerialized and caught the pass in front of that defender.

Um... no.

Look at the position and direction of the defender who caught the ball at the instant the "interfering defender" first contacted the receiver. Already the defender is closer to the ball than the receiver (and heading toward the ball, while the receiver is heading away). And the interference doesn't really occur until slightly after that.

This ball, even absent the existence of the interfering defender, was not catchable because of the existence of the intercepting defender. There is nothing the receiver could have done to magically get his body between that defender and the ball.

I dunno...what do you think? I think "uncatchable" means beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no play. I'd certainly say a 10% chance of catching is a reasonable albeit unlikely chance. I think we have to give the player every reasonable benefit of the doubt...it's catchable unless there's enough evidence to say it isn't. I respect that many judge it isnt in this case but I wholeheartedly disagree.

What Gerry seems to have stated was that if the pass is intercepted or knocked down before it gets to the player who was interfered with, then by definition it's "uncatchable." That's how I interpreted what he said on espin.

If that ball continues to the ground, the DPI probably stands, regardless of where it lands.

Uncatchable means uncatchable. 0%. Like in the play we're discussing.

I agree 100%. It is the defender that intercepted this ball that makes the ball uncatchable. If he's not there - this is 100% DPI (and if he's not there, the flagging official has nothing to ask for help about anyway).

I certainly agree with the first part. Not the second. I think you're underestimating Gronk's chances of getting back and competing for that ball if Kuechly didn't drive him off. The DB slid under because of the space vacated by Gronk, which I say was more because of the contact than you say. That's cool, I just don't see it as definitively as you do.

Then any ball that is not caught is "uncatchable" because it was not caught. Interesting.

Nothing is ever 0% or 100%.

Not true. A ball that crosses the out of bounds line 15 feet off the ground would be 0% catchable. A ball that lands 5 yards in front of a receiver would be 0% catchable. A ball that is batted down at the line of scrimmage is 0% catchable. And, importantly for this discussion, a ball that is intercepted before it ever reaches the receiver would be 0% catchable.

And for the record --- I love the irony in your final sentence. Nothing is ever 0% or 100%. Unintentional I suspect --- but loving the irony in that.

This is not what he said.

I honestly can't see how anyone could have reversed his momentum that quickly and gone through another person, legally, to make that catch.

Thus, not catchable.

I'm not underestimating Gronk at all. The DB that slid over was ALREADY THERE at the very first instant the potential interference could have started. I suppose it's conceivable that Gronk could have stopped, reversed, and caught that ball had it been allowed to go to the ground. However, it's IMPOSSIBLE (as in ... 0 %) that he could have gotten all the way up to where the ball was actually caught, given that the DB was heading toward the ball, and Gronk away from it. Much less both gotten there AND gotten in front of the DB.

And as an aside - no matter how many times Steve Young says "competing for the ball", it doesn't make it true.

I think that is one of the great things about calling this sport. We have a team to help us on the difficult calls covering a large expanse of playing area.

Pass Interference is a tough play to officiate with a lot of variables. The catchability of the ball is often a judgment that should be made by multiple officials. Intentional grounding is another great example of a call that should be made with multiple officials.

On DPI it looks far better to pick up a flag than it does to put down a really late one.

Well this really settles nothing. Blandino: We feel the officials followed proper protocol - NFL Videos

Blandino basically says they followed correct mechanics, and you can see how they could make that judgement call in real-time. Never says they were right or wrong...talk about walking the fence.

He does say no one will be downgraded as a result because they do not downgrade on tight judgement calls.

I though it was right to pick up the flag when it happened and I still like it today.

If this same thing between a receiver and a defender is happening at the pylon, nobody is talking about it because that receiver isn't going to catch the ball.

While obviously much closer to the play than at the pylon, Gronk wasn't going to catch this ball.

Team officiating is used in basketball and, more and more, in baseball too.

Of course it is. I was saying that one of the great things about football is that we can pick up a flag and continue on.

This pass gets intercepted even if Gronk was not being covered. His momentum is taking him out of the end zone if it wasn't for the contact.

That's just a ridiculous claim. He was clearly contacted well before the ball was intercepted. He'd been driven back several yards already by the time the ball was picked.

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_as...AMCcAAMQg-.jpg

And the contact started before that. He'd already been driven back around three yards by this point.

I'd say that officially makes the call incorrect, considering it was based on clearly incorrect logic.

It takes more than just contact to be considered DPI. He must be impeded. I'm also pretty sure the rules include something to the effect that the receiver must be making a "bona fide" attempt to reach the pass. Take away the contact and Gronks own momentum will still carry him deep. You can see him taking steps on his own that weren't the result of the contact. The contact was minimal. A still photo isn't conclusive. The video shows how minimal the contact was. His shoulders didn't dip, he wasn't twisted or turned. By the time the contact was more than minimum, the pass was intercepted. The speed of the pass was much faster than the speed that would have been required, even without the defender being there, for Gronk to be able to have put himself in a position to catch the pass. The pass was probably travelling at least 75 mph and Gronk would have had to have doubled that speed in order to cover the ground to close the distance from where he ran voluntarily to get back to a position to play the ball. I don't think Gronk can run that fast.

At the NCAA level we have been taught through clinics and video review that contact on a receiver a few yards behind the location where an interception takes place is NOT pass interference. We've been shown several plays where the contact was more significant than this. That's why several have said without the interception this would probably be DPI. Think of it like a punt blocker who makes contact with the ball before contacting the punter. That is not RTK. This is not DPI. The guys working this game have probably seen that and heard it much more often than me so that was a no-brainer call for them. The B probably realized right away he was a little quick on the trigger so looked for help to confirm he was wrong.

I'm not sure how physically forcing someone six yards through the end zone is "minimal" contact. The contact started within a couple yards of the point of interception and drove him away from the ball.

The contact didn't force him six yards. His momentum already had him going that direction, and he likely would have ended up in the same place without any contact. That is not he issue here.

Are you blind? He was clearly making an attempt to play the ball when the defender dragged him through the end zone.

We will never know if the pass was uncatchable, because Gronk is being pushed away from the ball. This is at least illegal contact past 5 yds or holding.

I don't think you can call that if the pass is in the air.

I've watched the clip a dozen times. At first, I was in the uncatchable camp. Then, I looked closer at the contact and where the receiver was relative to where the ball was intercepted. This muddled the issue. But after more consideration, I'm back in the uncatchable camp. Yes, the contact is significant and impeding, but a very close review of the film should lead you to the conclusion that the secondary defender would have intercepted the ball.

However, if the rule says, "clearly uncatchable," I don't think it meets that standard. If this play happened in an NCAA game, the flag should be picked up.
The NCAA rule says:

The pass would not have been untouched.

That's how I see it as well.

You can't have either with the ball in the air. If the ball is in the air, it is either DPI or nothing (barring a PF which is not a consideration here).

Baseball Perspective?
 

In baseball, we go by the saying "Don't take the sh!tty end of the stick". Unfortunately, I think the officials did exactly this :( for the following reasons:

1. I know football allows officials to "pick up" flags, however, the LAST play of the game is NOT the time that you want something like this to happen.

2. If your going to pick up the flag, please announce a brief explanation (during the game) as to why the flag was picked up - ESPECIALLY on a play of that magnatitude.

3. While the correct call MAY have been made???, since the official threw a flag on the play, I think there would have been A LOT less controversy if they would have just followed through and called at least SOME TYPE of infraction on this play (DPI, holding, etc.). This would have given the offense one more play, letting the players decide the outcome versus the officials

4. If the call could go either way, why give the benefit of the doubt to the defense on this play ... after all, they were the ones that caused this entire mess by "bear-hugging" the receiver???

5. "If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ... its probably a duck". Most people (other officials, fans, media, etc.) watching that play during the game say thats pass interference ... somethimes it's better to call the expected rather than try to justify the improbable.

Just my thoughts from an experienced baseball umpire who has NEVER officiated a football game in my life :eek:

I'm sure people will pick a part some or all of my post but my OVERALL point is, "don't take the sh!tty end of the stick" if you don't have too ;)

No, the rule says nothing about the timing of the interception with regard to the contact when determining whether the ball was catchable. No one here disputes the contact was before, so your strawman may burn brightly, but you've done nothing to refute the fact that the ball was uncatchable. Your still-shot does nothing to change that.

The ball was intercepted well before it got to where Gronk was impeded. Thus, by rule, the ball was not catchable and the DPI is voided.

I could pick every point apart but this one coming from an experienced umpire boggles my mind.

Here's where I'm confused: It's not DPI because Gronk didn't try to ward off the defender and get to where he could make the catch but Rich points out such warding off would be OPI.

So it seems to me, Gronk reset his feet to move forward and then was driven back before the interception was made. Had there been no contact, I think Gronk could have taken a step and dove and had a slight chance of catching the ball.

Leaving that aside, it seems the initial contact clears Gronk out of the path of the secondary defender who makes the interception.

At the end of the day, that this play can reasonably be considered legal is a problem with the rules more than the refereeing.

Being a deep wing in college, they do not want us calling PI just because there is the mere fact of contact. I cannot speak for what others might do, but there has to be an advantae by the contact and Gronk was not put at any disadvantage becuase he never tried to attempt to go for an underthrown ball. That of course is a judgment call, but that kind of judgment is what keeps you at that level or never allows you to get there. And even in high school I would not call DPI if a pass is so clearly not in the area, but the NFL and NCAA makes it clear that a player has to be able to make a play on the ball. Gronk never tried to go for the ball at all and the ball was clearly intercepted in front of him.

Peace

I know the NFL and NCAA philosophies aren't always in sync, but we've had a few training video plays this year with similar actions. If there is contact that is normally DPI but the pass is intercepted in front of that contact, there is no foul. I remember one play in particular where the first defender was in chase mode on a crossing route and definitely knocked the receiver down before the ball arrived. But another defender cut the route short 3-4 yards in front of this contact to intercept the ball. We were told to NOT flag that as DPI. I see this as a play in the same category. I also felt Gerry Austin's comments Monday night were in sync with that philosophy. Dean Blandino didn't mention it with his comments last night so it may not be the same philosophy in the NFL. But I really like that philosophy because while there was early contact, it had no impact on the receiver's ability to catch the ball because it was underthrown and someone else was there to make the catch.

Referee Announcement
 

I think the referee missed a golden opportunity to warn the NFL world about these types of plays.



Referee:
There is no foul on the play.
Look.
Don't ask us to bail you out after some wimpy pass into the end zone just because there was contact.
And if you are a receiver, for God's sake, give us a Hollywood attempt to reach the ball.

Otherwise we are going to do just as we have done, let the players decide the game.

And this game is over.

I'm ignoring the contact on Gronk to see what I think would have happened without it.

Without it, he would have had to completely alter his momentum in ways no man his size has ever done, and then go through another defender (that would have been OPI) to catch the ball.

The contact on Gronk was certainly illegal; but the ruling is that it had no effect on the play because the interception occurred where (not "when') it did: before the ball got to the players involved in the DPI. It's as if Brady had just thrown it into the stands.

But he was slowing down and starting to come back right as Kuechly started driving him back. Maybe he's able to screen off the DB trying to slip under in the vacated space, maybe he's not. But I don't know and I've seen that freak make some mighty freaky catches. For me, that's more than enough uncertainty to not call that clearly uncatchable and therefore a foul.

My understanding is there really isn't a lot of judgment involved, though. If it's intercepted prior to getting to the player who was interfered with, it's uncatchable by definition.

I think Gronk's ability/agility is being severely underestimated here. He's an NFL player who can make spectacular catches, not a HS freshman.

Had he not been interfered with I give him maybe 1 chance in 5 of making the catch instead of the secondary defender.

If he hadn't been impeded, he may have had a play on the ball. That's all that needs to be said.

It certainly wasn't "clearly uncatchable."

The NFL supervisor said it was a good call on a tight play. It really does not matter what we think if the NFL is not downgrading their officials for this play. None of us here are at that level and do not have to answer to the NFL for what was called.

Peace

Hate to disagree, but he said they got the mechanics correct, he never really said it was a good call. All he would say is that he would not say it was wrong. He went out of his way to not say they it was right.

He was fence sitting.

Obviously we don't have the answer to what was called or what not with the NFL, but it is a good discussion point.

Frankly, I'd rather see more of that than calling out officials for missing judgment calls all the time. What they're saying is, on a close judgment call, they're not making it a policy of publicly announcing whether they think it was correct. If it's a standard policy, then we'll never know on these plays. That's how it should be, IMO.

And getting the mechanics correct dismisses those complaints that "they shouldn't have picked up a flag on the last play of the game" or "the white hat should have given a more thorough explanation."

He said they got it correct and they were not downgrading the officials. Sounds like he is saying he is fine with the call to me. ;)

If they felt the call was incorrect, they would have said so like they do other times.

Peace

I agree, I don't mind it, but he never says they were correct. I would rather him say he is correct.

I'd rather they just stick to announcing when rule errors were made and continue to not announce when they disagree or agree with close judgment calls.

I kinda agree with him not saying it. While in the short term it might seem like he's backing them up by saying its correct, I like that he said this is a tight judgment call and they followed the proper procedure. If he said it was the right call (or the wrong call), it would mean every single close call would be asked about and de facto appealed to the league. Leave it to the officials on the field, it's not Blandino's place to judge every close call. And while I disagree with that call, I do also like that they won't downgrade an official that makes a tough call on a tight one.

Not quite.

ESPN broke this down, on its Sports Science segment, and shows that Gronk was slowing down and would have been in position to make a catch (not that he would have made it...but he would have been in position to do so).

Sport Science examines game-ending call - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

They completely and utterly ignored the important part ... the other defender.

Perhaps the necessity of providing each game official with the portable equipment necessary to match what "Sports Science Segment" can produce, analyse and assess, instantly, remains a cost (and practical) deterrent.

Each season I thank God for NF:1-1-9 "The game officials shall have the authority to make decisions for infractions of the rules. The use of replay or television monitoring equipment by the game officials in making any decision relating to the game is prohibited."

NF: 1-1-11 "Protestsof NFHS games are not recognized." gets special consideration as well.

Actually, they don't. They point out that he would have been competing with the other defender for the catch and his catching it would have been unlikely. But that's a far cry from uncatchable.

I wonder if they would've bothered with the story if the result would've been otherwise. I think not -- ESPN (and Deadspin) are only interested if it keeps the controversy going. And of course at the expense of the officials.

He would have had to have gone through the interceptors back and that would have then been OPI.

Gee, you think maybe he seemed to make no effort because the opponent holding him was in his face at that moment so he couldn't see the ball?

This is about as textbook a case of pass interference as you could illustrate. One player has turned around to play the ball while the opponent has his back to the ball and wraps him up. The ball comes down in a place where you can't say the player facing the ball could not have gotten his hands to. The BJ is about as well placed as I could imagine to see not only the act of interference but also the path of the ball; I don't see why anybody thinks he'd need help to make that judgment. And just in case you've never seen one player beat two opponents to the ball on a play like that, I'll tell you it happens.

For those of you saying A87 was already going backward when he was contacted, suppose he had the ball when he was tackled in the field of play like that. Where would you spot the ball? I bet you wouldn't've assumed all that backward momentum was his own in that case.

And as to the long-haired player who caught the ball, I could see A87 possibly getting shoulder to shoulder with him and having a shot at the ball had the other player not interfered with his opp'ty. "Uncatchable" means "impossible to catch", and how can you say that was impossible? Of course if the ball were intercepted or deflected a sufficient distance in front of the interfered-with player to have made it impossible for him to get to in time, that's one way a pass could be uncatchable, but the time and distance in this case are not like that.

Look at A87's shoulders & hips when B5- puts his hands on those shoulders. Once B5- gives him that shove, it's all over, because it's all A87 can do to stay on his feet, much less try to move to the ball. A87 started in position to change his momentum, but after that shove, his shoulders were behind his hips and he had no further chance. Therefore that shove on the shoulders was the pass interference; putting his arms around him and getting face mask to face mask was just window dressing. Erase B5- from the video at the instant just as that shove begins -- which you're justified in doing because he's making no play on the ball -- and then it's just A87 and the long-haired B guy, and you could easily imagine it being a contest for the ball.

No he would not. He could go around the side and easily make a play on that ball.

Easily? ? ? :)

Easily make a play, yes.

Easily catch, no.

Frankly, I think you guys are embarrassing yourselves by saying he wouldn't have had a play on the ball absent the contact.

If we're being Frank, I think you're insane for thinking he could stop on a dime, go the other direction, get completely through a defender and make any play at all on anything in the .34 seconds between the first instant of interference and the ball being caught. But that's just me.

I'd agree with you if we didn't see such things multiple times each game and have a clip where someone worked out the physics of the thing to show that it works out. But yeah, never could happen.