Carolina vs New England last play

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

[HLin NC]

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.

[jwwashburn]

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.

[scrounge]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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."

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

it wasn't "clearly uncatchable" as gerry austin tried to claim. So the flag should have remained.

+1

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Adam

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."

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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

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.