2013-2014 NFL Thread

[Kyyle23]

Sure, if you ignore the defender 2-3 yards in front of him in the path of the ball.

 

Again, you are dismissing Gronks ability to stay on the play. Kuechly pushed him off of it. I think Gronk has demonstrated the ability to make ridiculous plays

 

If the INT is dropped, I bet that PI/interference call is upheld

[Jenksismyhero]

Fair enough. Brady was under duress and just threw it up, that much is clear.

 

But how is that not defensive holding, at the very least?

 

It's one or the other, absolutely. But to me that interference or holding wouldn't have changed the fact that the ball was slightly under thrown and was intercepted. If Gronk had been defended legally he's not going to catch that ball because the carolina defender was in his way. He's drifting towards the back of the endzone while the carolina guy is breaking towards the ball closer to the middle/front of the endzone.

[iamshack]

Ok, now that I think about it, they do not call defensive holding after the ball has been thrown. They usually say "prior to the pass being thrown..." when they make that call. I guess that is an excuse to not call the holding. So then it comes down to interference, which they decided to waive off because they determined it was uncatchable. I honestly think it probably was uncatchable, but I still don't like them making that determination in real time on a ball thrown into the middle of the end zone.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jesus. So the ball is thrown, Keuchly is pushing him to the back of the endzone, and the DB runs up to intercept it. You could not see a clearer shot of how blatant of a missed call that is.

 

Gronk is running to the back of the endzone. By the time he's "pushed" the ball is already caught. Gronk is awesome, but he can't change his momentum and change direction instantly.

[Jake]

I actually don't think Kuechly did much to move Gronk, who definitely didn't have a chance to adjust. His hand placement is pretty incriminating, though. I do think that this "controversy" is at least 50% "it's the Patriots!" related

[iamshack]

Gronk is running to the back of the endzone. By the time he's "pushed" the ball is already caught. Gronk is awesome, but he can't change his momentum and change direction instantly.

Well watch the replay closely. The intercepting defender is in darn near the exact same spot as Gronk is when the interference begins. Keuchly has a right to be there and play the ball, but he isn't; he's facing Gronk and then encircles his arms around him, which is the definition of holding/interference. He impedes Gronk from making a play on the ball, illegally. I agree Gronk's momentum is taking him away from the ball and I doubt he catches it if the defender doesn't interfere with him, but it's pretty difficult to say with absolute certainty.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

I actually don't think Kuechly did much to move Gronk, who definitely didn't have a chance to adjust. His hand placement is pretty incriminating, though. I do think that this "controversy" is at least 50% "it's the Patriots!" related

 

 

Maybe nationally/ESPN. But I dont think many on this board care about the Patriots enough to be outraged. I think we are arguing because it was a s***ty call and s***ty explanation.

 

if it was the Bears against (insert team), it certainly would have been less of a story on ESPN

[Jenksismyhero]

Ok, now that I think about it, they do not call defensive holding after the ball has been thrown. They usually say "prior to the pass being thrown..." when they make that call. I guess that is an excuse to not call the holding. So then it comes down to interference, which they decided to waive off because they determined it was uncatchable. I honestly think it probably was uncatchable, but I still don't like them making that determination in real time on a ball thrown into the middle of the end zone.

 

According to Barnwell at Grantland they could have (and should have) called holding:

 

So, should there have been a penalty on the play? There are three possibilities I've heard bandied about. One, illegal contact, is a total nonstarter. You can only call illegal contact if the quarterback is still in the pocket and the ball is in his hands, and the contact between Gronkowski and Luke Kuechly occurred after the pass was thrown. That one is off the table. The second is defensive pass interference, which was the call made by Miles on the field before the umpire and side judge conferred with Miles and the rest of Clete Blakeman's crew, coming to the conclusion that the ball was uncatchable. I tend to agree with the officials here. Gronkowski is a freak athlete, but his momentum was carrying him away from the pass before Kuechly ever touched him. Even if you ignore that there were multiple Panthers defenders between Gronkowski and the ball, I don't think Gronkowski gets back to that pass if he's going up against air. The pass was so underthrown, in fact, that I wonder whether Tom Brady was purposely trying to draw a pass interference call with the throw to get his offense into a much more feasible game-winning situation. If the pass is uncatchable, there's no conversation to be had about pass interference.

 

The third possibility is defensive holding, which has a much stronger case. Defensive holding has no such disclaimer about the ball being in the quarterback's hands or the receiver being near a catchable pass, so the arguments against the first two possible calls don't apply. Kuechly's actions on the play also seem to fit one of the NFL's definitions of defensive holding:

 

The defensive player cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an eligible receiver in a manner that restricts movement as the play develops. Beyond this five-yard limitation, a defender may use his hands or arms ONLY to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. In such reaction, the defender may not contact a receiver who attempts to take a path to evade him.

Given that description, I think it's fair to call Kuechly for defensive holding on the play. Once the officials decided the pass was uncatchable and that Kuechly's action then could not represent pass interference, they should have recognized that Kuechly's actions still qualified as a penalty and flagged him for holding, giving the Patriots five yards and an untimed down to win the game.

[RockRaines]

Contact with a receiver while the ball is in the air. Pretty clear cut.

[iamshack]

According to Barnwell at Grantland they could have (and should have) called holding:

The rule cited here states that this is in effect when the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball.

 

Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender

may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a

receiver. If the receiver attempts to evade the defender, the defender cannot chuck him, or extend an

arm(s) to cut off or hook him, causing contact that redirects, restricts, or impedes the receiver in any way

 

Rule 12 Player Conduct

Edited November 19, 2013 by iamshack

[Chisoxfn]

Well, if he's right that they'd only have 18 seconds (versus 10 or 7 or whatever) while giving the ravens the ability to change their packages and call a wider variety of plays, it makes sense. I just don't know if he's right about the time that'd be left.

I have no earthly idea where he gets the 18 seconds. Can someone explain to me? He had 3 timeouts and like 50 - 60 seconds left and 1st and goal. In what world would there be 18 seconds left? I'd think you'd have like 30-40 seconds left.

[Chisoxfn]

There is no way Gronk stops his momentum, turns back and reaches the ball, defender or no defender. (Disclaimer: Panthers W won me my confidence pool)

I agree. That was PI but an uncatchable ball. At most, Gronk is able to break up the play from being a pick and that is pretty debatable. There is no flipping way he can make a play on the ball based upon where that throw was and where the DB who picked the ball was.

[Kyyle23]

I have no earthly idea where he gets the 18 seconds. Can someone explain to me? He had 3 timeouts and like 50 - 60 seconds left and 1st and goal. In what world would there be 18 seconds left? I'd think you'd have like 30-40 seconds left.

 

Come on Jason, this is so 24 hours ago. We are arguing Gronk now

[iamshack]

I have no earthly idea where he gets the 18 seconds. Can someone explain to me? He had 3 timeouts and like 50 - 60 seconds left and 1st and goal. In what world would there be 18 seconds left? I'd think you'd have like 30-40 seconds left.

Well, the Ravens ran the ball to the 5 where Ray Rice was tackled with like 1:12 left to get the first down. We'd take our first time out there. 1:08 left. Then they'd run a play, say 3-4 seconds long, we take our second time out. 1:04 left. On second down, they run another play, say 3-4 second long, we take our third time out. 1:00 left. On third down, they could run another play that results in a the player being down in bounds and the clock running. The play clock is what, 40 seconds long? They then kick the field goal with 20ish second left.

 

The issue with that reasoning is if they do that, they are either scoring the td or kicking the fg anyways, and the entire timing issue is moot.

[Chisoxfn]

There was a PI call in the Bears game where the ball landed nearly 10 yards beyond the end line. I'm still trying to figure out how that ball was catchable, yet I didn't notice anybody on the Bears sideline complaining, nor did the announcers mention it.

I was complaining. That was a bulls*** PI for the same reasons I don't think this was PI. Now if you want to argue holding or something else, maybe, I wasn't paying attention to see at what point in the play the holding happened but I presume it occurred while the ball was in the air (vs. prior to where you'd be talking illegal contact).

[Chisoxfn]

That's defensive holding and not pass interference.

5 yard penalty (vs. ball on the 1).

[LittleHurt05]

I have no earthly idea where he gets the 18 seconds. Can someone explain to me? He had 3 timeouts and like 50 - 60 seconds left and 1st and goal. In what world would there be 18 seconds left? I'd think you'd have like 30-40 seconds left.

 

Rice ran 11 yards to the 5

Timeout #1

1:16 - 1st & goal - Ravens run and get stuffed

Time out #2

1:10 - 2nd & goal - Ravens run and get stuffed

Time out #3

1:04 - 3rd & goal - Ravens run and get stuffed

No more timeouts, the Ravens can run the 40 seconds down and kick with around 18 seconds left

 

Of course, this assumes that the Ravens don't throw an incomplete pass, don't go out of bounds, don't score, or use one of their own two timeouts.

[witesoxfan]

It's one or the other, absolutely. But to me that interference or holding wouldn't have changed the fact that the ball was slightly under thrown and was intercepted. If Gronk had been defended legally he's not going to catch that ball because the carolina defender was in his way. He's drifting towards the back of the endzone while the carolina guy is breaking towards the ball closer to the middle/front of the endzone.

 

This is not the argument though. Is the ball catchable? Yes. Would Gronkowski have caught it? 99 times out of 100, no, no way.

 

And if you look at the GIF, Gronk stops, makes a move with his upper body towards, the ball, but Keuchly is too strong and continues pushing him away.

[LittleHurt05]

Well, the Ravens ran the ball to the 5 where Ray Rice was tackled with like 1:12 left to get the first down. We'd take our first time out there. 1:08 left. Then they'd run a play, say 3-4 seconds long, we take our second time out. 1:04 left. On second down, they run another play, say 3-4 second long, we take our third time out. 1:00 left. On third down, they could run another play that results in a the player being down in bounds and the clock running. The play clock is what, 40 seconds long? They then kick the field goal with 20ish second left.

 

The issue with that reasoning is if they do that, they are either scoring the td or kicking the fg anyways, and the entire timing issue is moot.

 

That's the second time you beat me to it.

[Kyyle23]

This is what happens when a man named Clete Blakeman referees games.

[Chisoxfn]

Rice ran 11 yards to the 5

Timeout #1

1:16 - 1st & goal - Ravens run and get stuffed

Time out #2

1:10 - 2nd & goal - Ravens run and get stuffed

Time out #3

1:04 - 3rd & goal - Ravens run and get stuffed

No more timeouts, the Ravens can run the 40 seconds down and kick with around 18 seconds left

 

Of course, this assumes that the Ravens don't throw an incomplete pass, don't go out of bounds, don't score, or use one of their own two timeouts.

Bad logic in that assumption (from Trestman's part). I at least like that he had a well thought process behind his logic, I just don't agree with it. The Ravens aren't going to be running the whole time. They are going to throw to the end zone at least once, if not twice. One of those is caught, its a TD and we need to score, if they are incomplete, well then we are in the same spot. Plus, Bmore had 2 timeouts of its own so they could have made whatever adjustments they wanted to anyway.

[witesoxfan]

This is what happens when a man named Clete Blakeman referees games.

 

He has kind of a cool last name. I wish that was my last name.

[GoSox05]

So wait if the Panthers corner back catches the ball in the end zone isn't that supposed to be TD Patriots?

 

[Kyyle23]

He has kind of a cool last name. I wish that was my last name.

 

change your name. for coolness sake

[witesoxfan]

change your name. for coolness sake

 

I'm not Donte Hitner