Controversy on last play of Patriots Panthers game

[victor]

Pass interference that was initially called and then reversed. Defensive back had a bear hug around Gronkowski. Call was reversed because ball was underthrown.

 

[Chip]

Pass interference that was initially called and then reversed. Defensive back had a bear hug around Gronkowski. Call was reversed because ball was underthrown.

Call wouldn't have been reversed if the ball was just underthrown. Call was reversed because the ball was underthrown to the point where it was intercepted.

Young, Gruden, Dilfer won't let it go, because Gronk is so tall with such long arms that he could have reached back and caught the ball before it hit the ground. That was the point they kept making. But it discounts the fact that the ball would have never actually made it to the point where Gronk could have reached and caught it before it hit the ground. Because another guy caught it first while the ball was higher in the air. Ray Lewis said it, but you can tell he's not all that comfortable dealing with them.

Ref who threw the flag was only watching the faceguard. Glad someone stepped in and asked him a question. Pass interference has become an auto call so often without much thought given to whether or not it prevented an actual reception. There's, of course, the judgement rule for uncatchable, but you typically only see that on sidelines passes that end up in the 2nd row.

I hope that is actually the rule, and I hope that's the interpretation that the refs used.

 

[Tobias Funke]

In the game of football when the ball is in the air you cannot bear hug the intended receiver. The contact was initially made when the ball was 5 to 10 yards from being picked. Gronk was not afforded the opportunity to make a play on the ball. Consider if it. Ad happened on a play in the first quarter outside of the end zone. I guarantee it would be called then. If it isn't PI it has to be holding.

 

[upperdeck]

it was a bad call. the ball wasnt thrown 10 yds short. it probably comes down around his knee-shin area and thats after he gets rerouted 3-4 yds deeper with the interference. he wasnt running full speed and easily makes the catch if the D is not grabbing him.. you could argue that the ball never gets that far, but what if a ga/auburn play happens and the DB pops it into the air? the contact takes place way to early to give up on his chance to catch the ball. if the contact happens just as the ball is intercepted its a tougher call but this happens so early its just a terrible call.

 

[Tobias Funke]

it was a bad call. the ball wasnt thrown 10 yds short. it probably comes down around his knee-shin area and thats after he gets rerouted 3-4 yds deeper with the interference. he wasnt running full speed and easily makes the catch if the D is not grabbing him.. you could argue that the ball never gets that far, but what if a ga/auburn play happens and the DB pops it into the air? the contact takes place way to early to give up on his chance to catch the ball. if the contact happens just as the ball is intercepted its a tougher call but this happens so early its just a terrible call.

The head of officials claims it was the right call because contact was made when the ball was intercepted. Replays clearly show it happened seconds earlier. Funny thing is had the official not thrown the flag it would have been seen on the replay, but less people would complain because you can't see everything. However, by throwing the flag the ref shows that he saw it clearly, and ultimately is obligated to call either PI or holding based on the rules. Instead they used the unwatchable ball as their out, but what about holding? 5 yards and one more play.

 

[upperdeck]

my buddy has a freeze frame showing the bear hug and the ball 10-15 yds away when the contact occurs,

 

[Chip]

it was a bad call. the ball wasnt thrown 10 yds short. it probably comes down around his knee-shin area and thats after he gets rerouted 3-4 yds deeper with the interference. he wasnt running full speed and easily makes the catch if the D is not grabbing him.. you could argue that the ball never gets that far, but what if a ga/auburn play happens and the DB pops it into the air? the contact takes place way to early to give up on his chance to catch the ball. if the contact happens just as the ball is intercepted its a tougher call but this happens so early its just a terrible call.

If the DB pops it up in the air, you either call it deflected pass or you call it PI. But it wasn't deflected, it was intercepted, so why isn't that part of the judgment equation?

If I'm a huddling ref who wants to get this right (and I'm not saying I'm right), I'd say what if there was no LB covering that TE. Do you think the TE catches that pass, or do you think the underthrow still results in that interception.

Uncatchable seems to only apply to overthrows. Rarely to an intercepted underthrow, not sure I've ever seen it. But I just think it should be. If SU lost on a call like that where PI is called, it would be really hard to get over. And I know how most people would react.

 

[Tobias Funke]

If the DB pops it up in the air, you either call it deflected pass or you call it PI. But it wasn't deflected, it was intercepted, so why isn't that part of the judgment equation?

If I'm a huddling ref who wants to get this right (and I'm not saying I'm right), I'd say what if there was no LB covering that TE. Do you think the TE catches that pass, or do you think the underthrow still results in that interception.

Uncatchable seems to only apply to overthrows. Rarely to an intercepted underthrow, not sure I've ever seen it. But I just think it should be. If SU lost on a call like that where PI is called, it would be really hard to get over. And I know how most people would react.

Chip.

What about calli g holding there. And also if gronk has a clear path to the ba he can make a at on it. Maybe that only results in an incompletion and the end if the game but he was still able to make a play on the ball. The reason I ask is if that wasnt the last play of the game Gronks ability to get to the ball carries a differe t weight. You have to call the game the same regardless of when the penalty occurs.

 

[Chip]

Chip.

What about calli g holding there. And also if gronk has a clear path to the ba he can make a at on it. Maybe that only results in an incompletion and the end if the game but he was still able to make a play on the ball. The reason I ask is if that wasnt the last play of the game Gronks ability to get to the ball carries a differe t weight. You have to call the game the same regardless of when the penalty occurs.

I need to watch again on the holding, because that is usually a way to avoid the judgment controversy. At first I didn't think so, because typically holding by a DB means some kind of grabbing of the jersey or body that stops a receiver from making his break or taking off. When I watched last night, I thought it was more classic faceguard, no head turn. I read what you guys are saying about the hugging, so I'm not disagreeing.

In any event, I hate when games end on calls like that. But I also hate PI, I think it's ultimately going to deter younger people from wanting to play DB. All rules seem to favor offense.

 

[upperdeck]

how can the NFL continue to say this was the correct call.. every angle of replay shows it was blown, one ref got it right and was overruled.

 

[TDTOrange]

I see it as the correct call, they've just blown the explanation. The reason the ball was deemed uncatchable by Gronk was because a different defender caught it before it ever would have gotten to him. It's the same as the pass being deflected and having PI waved off.

No other penalty is applicable in this situation as whatever contact occurred happened while the pass was in the air.

 

[upperdeck]

there is nothing in the rule book , related to that. had the contact not happened Gronk could have easily gotten back the 2-3 yds to get involved in the catch. And they did say they ball was uncatchable since it was coming in short, but the replays clearly showed it was not.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Tuck rule.

 

[TDTOrange]

After looking at this gif, there is no way in my mind that Gronk was going to get around the safety who intercepts this ball to catch it on his own. The safety moves in front of him before he even tries to change direction and Keuchly begins contact. In my mind, and the rulebook, everything else is irrelevant.

Everyone is going to see what they want in this play so it's probably not worth debating it. If the safety isn't there to intercept the ball in front of the play it is absolutely PI as Gronk isn't afforded the opportunity to make a play on a catchable ball. The reason it is uncatchable is because the ball is stopped short by a 2nd defender of the point at which Gronk could have gotten to. Anyone who thinks he could have changed directions, gotten in front of that safety and caught the ball without Keuchly there is living in a world without physics.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

After looking at this gif, there is no way in my mind that Gronk was going to get around the safety who intercepts this ball to catch it on his own. The safety moves in front of him before he even tries to change direction and Keuchly begins contact. In my mind, and the rulebook, everything else is irrelevant.

Everyone is going to see what they want in this play so it's probably not worth debating it. If the safety isn't there to intercept the ball in front of the play it is absolutely PI as Gronk isn't afforded the opportunity to make a play on a catchable ball. The reason it is uncatchable is because the ball is stopped short by a 2nd defender of the point at which Gronk could have gotten to. Anyone who thinks he could have changed directions, gotten in front of that safety and caught the ball without Keuchly there is living in a world without physics.

Couldn't it still be called defensive holding though? I've seen that called a hundred times when the receiver who was held wasn't even the targeted receiver. (At least I think I have)

 

[TDTOrange]

Couldn't it still be called defensive holding though? I've seen that called a hundred times when the receiver who was held wasn't even the targeted receiver. (At least I think I have)

Defensive holding is only applicable prior to the ball being thrown. In this case the ball was already on it's way.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Defensive holding is only applicable prior to the ball being thrown. In this case the ball was already on it's way.

Gotcha.

Then I think the right call was made. Gronk certainly didn't help Brady out on that one, but it really was Brady's fault.

 

[Cowtown]

After looking at this gif, there is no way in my mind that Gronk was going to get around the safety who intercepts this ball to catch it on his own. The safety moves in front of him before he even tries to change direction and Keuchly begins contact. ...

Anyone who thinks he could have changed directions, gotten in front of that safety and caught the ball without Keuchly there is living in a world without physics.

Precisely. He was moving away from the target zone under his own momentum. There's no possible way for him to stop, and get back to the ball with two defenders between him and the point at which it reasonably may have been catchable, on his own. It was the right call in that situation, but in order to understand that, one has to look beyond merely the defender who "puts the tongs on him."

 

[upperdeck]

so you are saying that anytime you throw a hail mary you should have one guy tackle wr and have another jump up and catch the ball and then its not PI because the ball was caught before the wr could have gotten too it? the initial contact was PI and the ball was around the 10. honestly have you ever seen a player get held while the ball was in the air and someone else Intercept it with no call?

 

[Cowtown]

so you are saying that anytime you throw a hail mary you should have one guy tackle wr and have another jump up and catch the ball and then its not PI because the ball was caught before the wr could have gotten too it? the initial contact was PI and the ball was around the 10. honestly have you ever seen a player get held while the ball was in the air and someone else Intercept it with no call?

No, that's not what I said. Go back and re-read it. I said "It was the right call in that situation," and I explained why I thought it was.

 

[dasher]

It was the incorrect call because the ball was intercepted. Gronk ( I am far from a Pats fan) could have made a play on the ball to have stopped the intercept from happening. If this was in the 3rd quarter it is P.I. for sure. Choke job by the refs. Watch the espn sports science on this play.

 

[Cowtown]

It was the incorrect call because the ball was intercepted. Gronk ( I am far from a Pats fan) could have made a play on the ball to have stopped the intercept from happening. If this was in the 3rd quarter it is P.I. for sure. Choke job by the refs. Watch the espn sports science on this play.

Then, I guess we just disagree.