Houston Texans Message Board & Forum - TexansTalk.com

Houston Texans Message Board & Forum - TexansTalk.com (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   The National Football League (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Pats/Panthers (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103091)

Txn_in_Oki 11-19-2013 08:15 PM

Pats/Panthers
 
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Tuck Rule, so fk him.

CretorFrigg 11-19-2013 08:49 PM

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eriadoc (Post 2254034)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CretorFrigg (Post 2254041)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eriadoc (Post 2254034)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by toronto (Post 2254127)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder (Post 2254134)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Texecutioner (Post 2254186)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Texecutioner (Post 2254186)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Texecutioner (Post 2254186)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder (Post 2254134)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder (Post 2254264)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blake (Post 2254307)
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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder (Post 2254313)
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.

Quote:

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

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
Ripping the pats aside, the right call to me was holding or illegal contact.

Dutchrudder 11-20-2013 12:40 PM

Re: Pats/Panthers
 
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/3594...rPI_medium.gif

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

Quote:

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ad Management by RedTyger