PDA

View Full Version : Pats/Panthers


Txn_in_FL
11-19-2013, 08:15 PM
By no means am I a Pats fan, but damn. This will probably be the one and absolute ONLY time I ever side with Brady. Those guys got robbed. At the very least that should have been a holding penalty, but it was pass interference.

What say you?

Mr teX
11-19-2013, 08:21 PM
I mean, it could've been called, but i have no problem with the refs coming together and deciding on not to call it in that situation Gronk's a big guy, he could've shed keuchly and made a better attempt at trying to get to the horribly underthrown ball. Lots of times thats the difference in whether or not refs call it. He kinda just stood there.

eriadoc
11-19-2013, 08:39 PM
Tuck Rule, so fk him.

CretorFrigg
11-19-2013, 08:49 PM
Tuck Rule, so fk him.

This.

The Patriots have had so many calls go their way. I don't feel bad for them at all.

chicagotexan2
11-19-2013, 09:15 PM
This.

The Patriots have had so many calls go there way. I don't feel bad for them at all.

^^^^that^^^^. I feel no sympathy for the them at all.

toronto
11-19-2013, 11:16 PM
Tuck Rule, so fk him.

This x 100000

Brady has gotten so many bull**** calls over the years that I truly was thrilled they got potentially screwed on one.

I'm sure Raider fans feel even less sympathetic.

Dutchrudder
11-19-2013, 11:31 PM
It was the right call. The ball was well underthrown, Gronk had no chance at getting to it, even with the LB hugging him.

eriadoc
11-19-2013, 11:35 PM
This x 100000

Brady has gotten so many bull**** calls over the years that I truly was thrilled they got potentially screwed on one.

I'm sure Raider fans feel even less sympathetic.

Yep. The Tuck Rule especially annoys me, because his entire legacy is kind of predicated upon it, and it was such a ****ty rule that they scrapped it.

infantrycak
11-20-2013, 12:11 AM
It was the right call. The ball was well underthrown, Gronk had no chance at getting to it, even with the LB hugging him.

That's the way I saw it.

Texecutioner
11-20-2013, 07:32 AM
That was a pass interference call and everyone in here knows it. Just because you hate the team that it happened to shouldn't ever change how you can easily view a play. Its always amazing to me to see how people will let their bias completely over rule their objectivity. If that same play happened at the end of a Texans game, everyone saying it wasn't a pass interference call would be screaming bloody murder. Lol!

Dutchrudder
11-20-2013, 10:38 AM
That was a pass interference call and everyone in here knows it. Just because you hate the team that it happened to shouldn't ever change how you can easily view a play. Its always amazing to me to see how people will let their bias completely over rule their objectivity. If that same play happened at the end of a Texans game, everyone saying it wasn't a pass interference call would be screaming bloody murder. Lol!

Of course it was pass interference, but the ball was tipped/intercepted well before it ever made it to the receiver, therefore it gets called off. If Gronk had stopped moving towards the back of the end zone, and was making an effort to get back to the underthrown ball, then I think the flag would have stayed. But he didn't, so the flag gets picked up.

eriadoc
11-20-2013, 10:40 AM
That was a pass interference call and everyone in here knows it.

It was pass interference, yes. But we do NOT know that the ball was catchable. You don't either. It sure as hell looked uncatchable to me. Judgment call by the officials, and they picked it up. Trying to act like it's indisputable is ridiculous.

Double Barrel
11-20-2013, 11:18 AM
That was a pass interference call and everyone in here knows it. Just because you hate the team that it happened to shouldn't ever change how you can easily view a play. Its always amazing to me to see how people will let their bias completely over rule their objectivity. If that same play happened at the end of a Texans game, everyone saying it wasn't a pass interference call would be screaming bloody murder. Lol!

I agree. I thought the whole thing was bogus and bush league. I'd feel the same if it happened to the Cowboys or Titans. The league's excuse was weak sauce, too.

NFL AM had a poll among coaches and said the majority agreed that the flag should not have been overturned. Jeff Fisher even came out and talked about it.

But it is what it is. The Pats are not blaming it for costing them the game like many other teams would claim. They know there was 59:57 of game that they had a chance to make plays to win the game.

Blake
11-20-2013, 11:53 AM
It was the right call. The ball was well underthrown, Gronk had no chance at getting to it, even with the LB hugging him.

I dont get this logic. How do you know what would have happened with different variables? You are making an assumption. Saying he would have had "no chance" with a different set of circumstances sounds crazy to me.

I could understand if the pass was intercepted and then the pass interference happened, similarly to a tipped ball and pass interference happening after that gets waved off.

But I am not willing to act like I know how things would have played out had the linebacker not been committing the penalty.

Where is Ben Tate with his wishy washy comments when we need him?

Blake
11-20-2013, 11:58 AM
Of course it was pass interference, but the ball was tipped/intercepted well before it ever made it to the receiver, therefore it gets called off. If Gronk had stopped moving towards the back of the end zone, and was making an effort to get back to the underthrown ball, then I think the flag would have stayed. But he didn't, so the flag gets picked up.

I disagree. The act of pass interference by the LB was happening well before the ball was intercepted. Had the interception occurred before the act of pass interference then I would agree with you. But the fact that it happened before and during the interception I must call it pass interference.

HOU-TEX
11-20-2013, 12:06 PM
I was super impressed with Cam. Maybe I just haven't seen a lot of him, but he can spin the heck out of the ball. I almost felt sorry for his WRs on a few on his passes. The velocity on his passes is ridiculous. I'm surprised his WRs haven't Torry Holt-ed their fingers. Impressive

It was a very good game for MNF

Dutchrudder
11-20-2013, 12:07 PM
I disagree. The act of pass interference by the LB was happening well before the ball was intercepted. Had the interception occurred before the act of pass interference then I would agree with you. But the fact that it happened before and during the interception I must call it pass interference.

That's great for you, but that's not how the rule works. I've seen this happen before where a CB is called for a PI while the ball is in the air, but a safety undercuts the pass in front of the players, so the flag is waved off. It's uncommon for sure, but not unheard of.

The distance doesn't really matter, it's just that the ball is tipped/intercepted before it gets to where the receiver is. Once the ball is in the air, you cannot have defensive holding or illegal contact, it can only be pass interference. If they had called holding or illegal contact, then the flag couldn't have been waved off.

Blake
11-20-2013, 12:19 PM
That's great for you, but that's not how the rule works. I've seen this happen before where a CB is called for a PI while the ball is in the air, but a safety undercuts the pass in front of the players, so the flag is waved off. It's uncommon for sure, but not unheard of.

The distance doesn't really matter, it's just that the ball is tipped/intercepted before it gets to where the receiver is. Once the ball is in the air, you cannot have defensive holding or illegal contact, it can only be pass interference. If they had called holding or illegal contact, then the flag couldn't have been waved off.

Talk about "thats not how the rule works." There is NOTHING in the rulebook that says if the pass is intercepted then PI is waived off.

The only time PI is void is once the ball is touched. And as I previously said, the pass wasnt touched until well after the LB was commiting PI on the TE.

Note 3: Pass interference for both teams ends when the pass is touched.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference

toronto
11-20-2013, 12:25 PM
Ripping the pats aside, the right call to me was holding or illegal contact.

Dutchrudder
11-20-2013, 12:40 PM
There is maybe a split second between the time the ball is touched and when Keuchly actually wraps up Gronk. Yes there was some contact there and it would normally be a PI, BUT the pass is undercut about 7 yards in front of them. Here's a gif of the play for reference:

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/assets/3594467/carPI_medium.gif

When that happens, you employ this rule from your link:

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.

(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball.

Gronk was too far away from where the pass was intercepted to make a play on the ball or even the player for that matter. Therefore it is an uncatchable ball, and the flag gets picked up.

Blake
11-20-2013, 12:49 PM
Gronk was too far away from where the pass was intercepted to make a play on the ball or even the player for that matter. Therefore it is an uncatchable ball, and the flag gets picked up.

I guess im just not a fan of making assumptions of what would have happened. But when I get my crystal ball I will join you and the refs.

Dutchrudder
11-20-2013, 01:01 PM
I guess im just not a fan of making assumptions of what would have happened. But when I get my crystal ball I will join you and the refs.

He literally had 1 second to stop going towards the back of the end zone, change direction, and move 2-3 steps towards where the INT was made. It's physically impossible to do that, and he made absolutely no effort to do so. He doesn't even try to fight off Keuchly, so I don't think he should get the benefit of the doubt here.

Edit: FYI, the gif I posted is not in real-time, it's slightly slowed down. That does make some difference when you consider that the refs are calling the play based on what they saw on the field, and they have no way of reviewing it on video like we can.

infantrycak
11-20-2013, 02:11 PM
That was a pass interference call and everyone in here knows it. Just because you hate the team that it happened to shouldn't ever change how you can easily view a play. Its always amazing to me to see how people will let their bias completely over rule their objectivity. If that same play happened at the end of a Texans game, everyone saying it wasn't a pass interference call would be screaming bloody murder. Lol!

There are some people in the thread who are Pats haters but no everyone does not know it was pass interference because it wasn't. I don't care one way or another about the Pats. The ball must be catchable for there to be pass interference and it clearly was not catchable.

Of course it was pass interference, but the ball was tipped/intercepted well before it ever made it to the receiver, therefore it gets called off.

You even quoted it, it is definitionally not pass interference. Otherwise spot on in this thread.

eriadoc
11-20-2013, 02:58 PM
Ripping the pats aside, the right call to me was holding or illegal contact.

They talked about this on the radio this morning. Said the rule is very clear that once the ball is in the air, those calls are off the table. It's PI or nothing.

Dutchrudder
11-20-2013, 04:34 PM
You even quoted it, it is definitionally not pass interference. Otherwise spot on in this thread.

It is uncatchable due to the safety making the interception. Had he not been there, the ball would have hit around Luke Keuchley's feet, and been a PI.

Blake
11-20-2013, 05:35 PM
It is uncatchable due to the safety making the interception. Had he not been there, the ball would have hit around Luke Keuchley's feet, and been a PI.

:kubepalm:

Think about what you are saying. Your logic above states that defensive players can commit PI as long as another defender undercuts the route and intercepts it.

I think you and I could go round and round but the simple fact is that uncatchable is not defined by the NFL in the rule book or anywhere else.

On another note, I thought this was hilarious.

“We as officials have always been taught, for a ball to be uncatchable, it has to be clearly out of the field of play or it has to be a kind of — I probably shouldn’t say this — a Tim Tebow-type pass that lands 15 yards in front of you,” Daopoulus said.

Dutchrudder
11-20-2013, 06:18 PM
I have always considered "uncatchable" to mean that the intended receiver of the offense had no chance of getting the ball. I don't think it has ever been defined to be exclusively for overthrows. Gronk had no chance of getting that ball because it was undercut by the safety. How does that not equal being "uncatchable?"

Txn_in_FL
11-20-2013, 06:45 PM
There is maybe a split second between the time the ball is touched and when Keuchly actually wraps up Gronk. Yes there was some contact there and it would normally be a PI, BUT the pass is undercut about 7 yards in front of them. Here's a gif of the play for reference:

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/assets/3594467/carPI_medium.gif

When that happens, you employ this rule from your link:



Gronk was too far away from where the pass was intercepted to make a play on the ball or even the player for that matter. Therefore it is an uncatchable ball, and the flag gets picked up.

To me it looks like the interferance starts when he tries to make his cut back to the ball. He can't get to it because he is getting pushed back and then gets a big friendly hug from the defender.

Blake
11-20-2013, 06:53 PM
To me it looks like the interferance starts when he tries to make his cut back to the ball. He can't get to it because he is getting pushed back and then gets a big friendly hug from the defender.

Agreed. I do see him stick his right foot in the ground to change direction, but is unable to go towards the ball due to 230 pounds of linebacker in his way.

WolverineFan
11-20-2013, 07:34 PM
Probably should have been PI, but as a former DB I love seeing these kind of things go uncalled. At some point make the receiver make a play. Don't bail them out with flags on every borderline play.

YeaLikeRightNow
11-20-2013, 07:58 PM
The refs looked at it and decided the infraction was meaningless since the ball was underthrown and intercepted while the huggs were happening.

STEEL BLUE TEXANS
11-20-2013, 09:21 PM
Of course the pass is uncatchable once Kuechly starts pushing Gronk backwards. Gronk plants his foot to come back to the ball and that's when Kuechly commits the pass interference penalty. Flag shouldn't have been picked up but I'm glad it was. God knows the Patriots have gotten their fair share of calls in the past.