2013-2014 NFL Thread

[Kyyle23]

What if the d-back for Carolina doesn't make a clean catch and the ball pops up right into the vicinity of Kuechly and Gronk.

 

My favorite part of it all was Ryan Mallet coming to Brady's aid out of nowhere to help him argue that call. That and audibly hearing Brady yell, "that is f***ing bulls***!"

 

Off topic but Mallet's going to be a stud. Like his fire too.

 

 

All i am going to say is that if Cutler was the one walking off the field berating the officials like that, there would be a national outrage.

[Jenksismyhero]

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

 

Yes, Gronk had a 0% chance of ever catching that ball. Take away his defender and he still doesn't catch that ball. He's going to the back of the endzone whereas the carolina defender and the ball were towards the middle of the end zone. In .25 seconds he's not changing direction and diving forward 2-3 yards.

 

 

 

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.

 

I don't think it was catchable based on the where the ball was and where Gronk was headed even with the contact. There's no way he catches that ball even if it's not intercepted. The interception just further establishes that it was never going to happen.

 

Edit: and in your scenario if the tackle didn't play into the uncatchability of the pass, as was the case here, then yes, that's a correct call too. It's no different than a guy interfering with a receiver on one side of the field when the ball is thrown to another receiver on the other side of the field. You don't call pass interference there even though there is clearly interference. If you can't catch the ball, you can't catch the ball. The interference doesn't change the play. That's how last night was called and I believe the video confirms it.

 

Edited November 19, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

Yes, Gronk had a 0% chance of ever catching that ball. Take away his defender and he still doesn't catch that ball. He's going to the back of the endzone whereas the carolina defender and the ball were towards the middle of the end zone. In .25 seconds he's not changing direction and diving forward 2-3 yards.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think it was catchable based on the where the ball was and where Gronk was headed even with the contact. There's no way he catches that ball even if it's not intercepted. The interception just further establishes that it was never going to happen.

 

 

Completely disagree. I think that Gronk makes that play if there is no interference and no other defender.

 

(edit)

 

And the fact that there is any real argument over whether it was "catchable" should mean that the flag stays. It should have to be indisputably not catchable. Im talking 15-20 yards away.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Soxbadger

[witesoxfan]

Yes, Gronk had a 0% chance of ever catching that ball. Take away his defender and he still doesn't catch that ball. He's going to the back of the endzone whereas the carolina defender and the ball were towards the middle of the end zone. In .25 seconds he's not changing direction and diving forward 2-3 yards.

 

I don't think it was catchable based on the where the ball was and where Gronk was headed even with the contact. There's no way he catches that ball even if it's not intercepted. The interception just further establishes that it was never going to happen.

 

Are you kidding me? He's right there. Watch the GIF again, visualize no defenders, and look at where Gronkowski is. He has to take like maybe 2 steps. I've said all along that I don't think Gronkowski comes up with that catch, but I think he can at least prevent the INT from happening and perhaps punching it up into the air, and he can certainly make the catch too.

[Jenksismyhero]

Completely disagree. I think that Gronk makes that play if there is no interference and no other defender.

 

(edit)

 

And the fact that there is any real argument over whether it was "catchable" should mean that the flag stays. It should have to be indisputably not catchable. Im talking 15-20 yards away.

 

Agree to disagree I guess. I don't see him ever catching that ball based on the route he was running and where Brady put the ball. And I think it would have been terrible to bail out the Patriots and basically give them a win on a penalty that didn't affect the play.

[Jenksismyhero]

Are you kidding me? He's right there. Watch the GIF again, visualize no defenders, and look at where Gronkowski is. He has to take like maybe 2 steps. I've said all along that I don't think Gronkowski comes up with that catch, but I think he can at least prevent the INT from happening and perhaps punching it up into the air, and he can certainly make the catch too.

 

Watch the video in real time and it's much clearer. He's not running a curl route. He's heading to the back of the end zone to catch a high ball. The defender impedes his progress initially and then holds him, but by that point he has no shot of turning back to the goal line and diving forward. IMO it would have been physically impossible for him to get close to the ball and/or the defender that intercepts it.

[Soxbadger]

Agree to disagree I guess. I don't see him ever catching that ball based on the route he was running and where Brady put the ball. And I think it would have been terrible to bail out the Patriots and basically give them a win on a penalty that didn't affect the play.

 

Bail them out?

 

If the ball was so poorly thrown and there was no way Gronk could get it, why did the defender find it necessary to interfere?

 

Its not "bailing them out", its calling a penalty.

 

I really dont care, I dont like the Patriots. I just find that many people are willing to look past "rules" and "fairness" if a team they dislike loses because of it.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Not sure why it's so tough to find the widescreen shot of the play, but go to 5:07 here:

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...hers-highlights

 

He's much farther away than it appears in the endzone camera shot.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Jake- Not sure if you were aware but I believe your name was mentioned on Waddle and Silvy today.

[iamshack]

And this is why the officials shouldn't be trying to determine in real time whether a play that close was catchable. You guys, who I consider pretty bright guys, can't even agree after looking at the replay all day.

 

The defender interfered with the receiver while the ball was in the air and prior to it being touched by a defensive player.

 

Jenks, please explain to me why the refs should go through some real time determination of an freak athlete's capabilities (combined with a moving object, other moving players, etc), rather than enforcing a clear infraction that NO ONE. Denies occurred?

Edited November 20, 2013 by iamshack

[IlliniKrush]

And this is why the officials shouldn't be trying to determine in real time whether a play that close was catchable. You guys, who I consider pretty bright guys, can't even agree after looking at the replay all day.

 

The defender interfered with the receiver while the ball was in the air and prior to it being touched by a defensive player.

 

Jenks, please explain to me why the refs should go through some real time determination of an freak athlete's capabilities (combined with a moving object, other moving players, etc), rather than enforcing a clear infraction that NO ONE. Denies occurred?

If you're arguing that they shouldn't determine if it's catchable or whatever in real-time, you can slice that argument both ways. You can't just assume everything is catchable, either. The answer could be that it needs to be reviewable.

[iamshack]

If you're arguing that they shouldn't determine if it's catchable or whatever in real-time, you can slice that argument both ways. You can't just assume everything is catchable, either. The answer could be that it needs to be reviewable.

I'm saying whether something is catchable shouldn't even be a consideration.

 

If there is an infraction, there is an infraction. If the ball is in the air and hasn't been touched, you can't interfere with a receiver.

[IlliniKrush]

I'm saying whether something is catchable shouldn't even be a consideration.

 

If there is an infraction, there is an infraction. If the ball is in the air and hasn't been touched, you can't interfere with a receiver.

Gotcha. I disagree with that, as there has to be some judgment involved somewhere.

 

Ultimately I think if they never threw a flag last night, not much would have been made of it. Once you throw it and then take it back, it opens the floodgates.

 

Was Gronk catching that pass? No way in hell. Was there a penalty? Debatable. So the outcome of Panthers winning is ultimately the correct one, but the way they got there wasn't very clean.

[iamshack]

Gotcha. I disagree with that, as there has to be some judgment involved somewhere.

 

Ultimately I think if they never threw a flag last night, not much would have been made of it. Once you throw it and then take it back, it opens the floodgates.

 

Was Gronk catching that pass? No way in hell. Was there a penalty? Debatable. So the outcome of Panthers winning is ultimately the correct one, but the way they got there wasn't very clean.

You don't think that was interference? So say the defender that ultimately intercepted the pass wasn't there, and the ball fell closer to Gronk's feet, you don't think they should have called interference on Kuechly?

[IlliniKrush]

You don't think that was interference? So say the defender that ultimately intercepted the pass wasn't there, and the ball fell closer to Gronk's feet, you don't think they should have called interference on Kuechly?

The defender was there, though, which to me makes a huge difference. And the ball wasn't really catchable even if he wasn't, IMO.

[Jake]

Jake- Not sure if you were aware but I believe your name was mentioned on Waddle and Silvy today.

 

scs and I discussed this and I took a listen and, indeed, Waddle and Silvy discussed my article on Yahoo on their show today. Really cool for a small time bro like me

 

The funny thing is that I met them before the Giants game at Ditka's and they certainly have no idea that I'm THAT guy

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jake

[Jenksismyhero]

And this is why the officials shouldn't be trying to determine in real time whether a play that close was catchable. You guys, who I consider pretty bright guys, can't even agree after looking at the replay all day.

 

The defender interfered with the receiver while the ball was in the air and prior to it being touched by a defensive player.

 

Jenks, please explain to me why the refs should go through some real time determination of an freak athlete's capabilities (combined with a moving object, other moving players, etc), rather than enforcing a clear infraction that NO ONE. Denies occurred?

 

I agree with you this is a close call, and they probably should not be determining if a ball is catchable unless it's obvious (the 20 feet in the air pass). However, in this situation if the officials are right there and can determine that it would be unlikely that he catches it, I have no problem with them waiving off the flag because the ball was intercepted. In the NHL the officials often times have great latitude in when to call certain penalties and when not to depending on what else is going on on the ice. I think the NFL should be that way too. I think if the officials are certain that Gronk would not have caught that ball because of his position and because of the ultimate interception, it was the right decision to waive off the flag.

 

I can't get behind a blanket rule that a penalty is a penalty and should always be called no matter what. If things happen outside the scope of the play and don't affect the play, just play on.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[iamshack]

scs and I discussed this and I took a listen and, indeed, Waddle and Silvy discussed my article on Yahoo on their show today. Really cool for a small time bro like me

 

The funny thing is that I met them before the Giants game at Ditka's and they certainly have no idea that I'm THAT guy

Very well done, Jake!

[IlliniKrush]

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/1...s-refs-decision

[Kyyle23]

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/18592...ce=facebook.com

[southsider2k5]

ChiTribSports ‏@ChiTribSports 17m

 

Hester confident he could play defensive back if necessary http://trib.in/1jt2E8i

[Kyyle23]

ChiTribSports ‏@ChiTribSports 17m

 

Hester confident he could play defensive back if necessary http://trib.in/1jt2E8i

 

cannot underline, bold and enlarge this enough

[Chisoxfn]

This game is going to be a big test for our run D and oline.

[Kyyle23]

Well that was an ominous start

[soxsoxsoxsox]

This game is going to be a big test for our run D and oline.

 

we fail

 

lolol so painful to watch our run d