2013-2014 NFL Thread

[IlliniKrush]

The only reason this is an issue is because a flag was originally thrown, then there was no call and they picked it up. If there isn't a flag thrown to begin with, no one outside of NE would have thought there was legit PI there, it would have been a pick and game over. Gronk wasn't catching that by a long shot, at best he would have maybe been able to break up an interception.

[witesoxfan]

The only reason this is an issue is because a flag was originally thrown, then there was no call and they picked it up. If there isn't a flag thrown to begin with, no one outside of NE would have thought there was legit PI there, it would have been a pick and game over. Gronk wasn't catching that by a long shot, at best he would have maybe been able to break up an interception.

 

Not catching it is not the same as uncatchable. It was a blatant missed call. And I hate the Patriots.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

I don't really see it that way. I see Gronk heading towards the back of the endzone and he maybe slows down. About the time the ball is intercepted Keuchly is denying Gronk from getting to the spot where the ball may end up. Gronk is never going towards the ball (towards the front of the end zone) and by the time his motion is really impeded the ball is already intercepted.

 

 

[IlliniKrush]

I don't really see it that way. I see Gronk heading towards the back of the endzone and he maybe slows down. About the time the ball is intercepted Keuchly is denying Gronk from getting to the spot where the ball may end up. Gronk is never going towards the ball (towards the front of the end zone) and by the time his motion is really impeded the ball is already intercepted.

Perfect description of what happened.

[witesoxfan]

We'll disagree and I maintain that it's a blatant missed call.

[Rowand44]

I'm on Blake Blakeman's side on this one.

[Rowand44]

And for those of you saying that the best Gronk could do is break up the play, if the receiver can touch the ball I'd say that makes it "catchable" whether he's likely to catch it or not.

[GoSox05]

They usually only rule something uncatchable when it's either way out of bounds or about 15 yards away from the WR.

 

A ball that is within 5-8 yards is usually never ruled uncatchable.

[lasttriptotulsa]

The way I look at that play last night is that, was it pass interfernece by the very definition of the rule? Probably. While I don't think Gronkowski had a real shot at catching it, it was still close enough to not get the "uncatchable ball" treatment.

 

I think the refs got together, decided that if they call PI and give the Patriots the ball at the one yard line, that they are basically gift wrapping the game for the Patriots on a play that the reciever really did not have a chance at catching.

 

I'll admit that if this had happened to the Packers I would be mad that the PI was not called, but as an unbiased observer I like the no-call.

Edited November 19, 2013 by lasttriptotulsa

[witesoxfan]

FWIW, Keuchly is notorious for doing this and was called for doing this same exact thing against the Bills, which inevitably cost them the game.

[iamshack]

Do they make this same call if the game is in Foxboro?

[Jake]

Does the presence of an obvious interceptor between ball and receiver make the pass uncatchable?

 

I might be able to fathom that the ball gets near enough to Gronk if the ball is unimpeded. On the other hand, even an unimpeded Gronk has no chance of stopping that interception.

[iamshack]

Does the presence of an obvious interceptor between ball and receiver make the pass uncatchable?

 

I might be able to fathom that the ball gets near enough to Gronk if the ball is unimpeded. On the other hand, even an unimpeded Gronk has no chance of stopping that interception.

Yes, that is what Gerry Austin was saying. It's similar to the treatment to a tipped ball, I believe.

[Soxbadger]

Its a terrible call. If Gronk isnt held, who knows what happens.

 

And the presence of a possible interceptor should do nothing. What if the ball goes right through his hands, now its pass interference?

 

 

[witesoxfan]

I still submit that Gronkowski sees the ball and is in the process of adjusting to it when Keuchly initially pushes him and then puts his arms around him. Ultimately, it could have ended up in offensive pass interference because Gronkowski could have easily been in a position to push off the safety.

 

It's over, Patriots lose, and I'm happy about that.

[Jenksismyhero]

Its a terrible call. If Gronk isnt held, who knows what happens.

 

And the presence of a possible interceptor should do nothing. What if the ball goes right through his hands, now its pass interference?

 

That's why waiving off the flag was the right move. He DID intercept the ball.

[iamshack]

That's why waiving off the flag was the right move. He DID intercept the ball.

I can live with that. Under that interpretation of the rules, that is a fair treatment.

 

I just think the rule needs to be changed...I don't think the rule was written to contemplate the situation that occurred last night. The officials shouldn't be deciding what the limits of one's athletic ability may or may not be, especially not in real time.

[Balta1701]

The officials shouldn't be deciding what the limits of one's athletic ability may or may not be, especially not in real time.

I think "making pass interference calls reviewable" is just about at the top of my list for rule changes I'd like to see in the NFL. It's just such a huge play, it can make things swing by 50+ yards and we can all remember seeing incredibly bad blown calls on it. Same standard as every other overturn, there has to be conclusive evidence nothing happened on the video (or that the guy was completely mangled while trying to catch the ball), but make it reviewable.

 

In this case, the call on the field would probably stand as you can't clearly demonstrate he'd have been able to make that a catchable ball.

[Jenksismyhero]

I can live with that. Under that interpretation of the rules, that is a fair treatment.

 

I just think the rule needs to be changed...I don't think the rule was written to contemplate the situation that occurred last night. The officials shouldn't be deciding what the limits of one's athletic ability may or may not be, especially not in real time.

 

So would you get rid of the uncatchable exception altogether?

[iamshack]

I think "making pass interference calls reviewable" is just about at the top of my list for rule changes I'd like to see in the NFL. It's just such a huge play, it can make things swing by 50+ yards and we can all remember seeing incredibly bad blown calls on it. Same standard as every other overturn, there has to be conclusive evidence nothing happened on the video (or that the guy was completely mangled while trying to catch the ball), but make it reviewable.

 

In this case, the call on the field would probably stand as you can't clearly demonstrate he'd have been able to make that a catchable ball.

I don't believe that should be the criteria. That's not really clearly demonstrable. What would the criteria be from determining whether something was catchable?

 

IMO, you need to take uncatchable off the table. An interference infraction should be an infraction, just as plenty of other things are that may or may not affect the play in question.

[iamshack]

So would you get rid of the uncatchable exception altogether?

I would, yes.

 

We don't have a rule that says a holding penalty can be changed because the hold was on the other side of the field. The officials aren't in the business of determining whether illegal blocks in the back on kickoff/punt returns would have actually impacted the return. If there is a block in the back, there is a block in the back and they throw the flag.

 

I don't know why we need to have this special exception here.

[BigSqwert]

I would, yes.

 

We don't have a rule that says a holding penalty can be changed because the hold was on the other side of the field. The officials aren't in the business of determining whether illegal blocks in the back on kickoff/punt returns would have actually impacted the return. If there is a block in the back, there is a block in the back and they throw the flag.

 

I don't know why we need to have this special exception here.

[witesoxfan]

Was it a hometown call? http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-real-re...7689096/@kylenw

 

I don't think that's absurd, and they aren't saying the refs are homers either.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

That's why waiving off the flag was the right move. He DID intercept the ball.

 

But would he have intercepted the ball had Gronk not been interfered with?

 

This isnt chicken versus egg.

 

The interference occurred prior to the pass being intercepted. Now if the pass was already intercepted and then the foul occurred, that is not a foul and the penalty should be negated. But the rules already provide for this as once a ball is tipped there is no pass interference.

 

Here is the ultimate reason why this logic doesnt work:

 

Bears v Packers. Last play of the game. Fade route to Marshall. The defender as soon as the ball is released tackles Marshall to the ground, another defender intercepts the ball.

 

According to your rule, no interference because the ball was intercepted and therefore "not catchable"

 

Or is it a penalty, because "but for the interference" we dont know what Marshall could or could not have done.

 

And the rule is fine. It generally only applies to cases where the ball couldnt be caught due to the pass being outside of the range of the WR. I have never seen it called because a defender was in front of the WR and therefore it was possible that it would be intercepted and thus "not catchable".

 

Its just a berserk interpretation and I assume will be fixed in the off-season.

[Jenksismyhero]

I would, yes.

 

We don't have a rule that says a holding penalty can be changed because the hold was on the other side of the field. The officials aren't in the business of determining whether illegal blocks in the back on kickoff/punt returns would have actually impacted the return. If there is a block in the back, there is a block in the back and they throw the flag.

 

I don't know why we need to have this special exception here.

 

That would be a rule change i'd be behind. There's nothing worse than those phantom hold calls on the opposite side of the field that have nothing to do with the actual play. That should be a play on situation.

 

But I disagree that there shouldn't be an exception for an uncatchable ball. If a QB sails a pass 30 feet over a receivers head, there shouldn't be an interference penalty. The interference didn't cause any change in the receivers ability to catch the ball.