PDA

View Full Version : Pure football.



Amy
11-19-2013, 12:36 AM
This was a classic game. Gratz to the Panthers.

We don't have Gregory or Denard. Talib is back. I'd rather see Talib rest one more week, so he's fully ready for Denver. We've activiated Vereen, but he might not play, or just play a little. Big game for both teams, should be good!

Tirico and Chucky on the call. Clete Blakeman is the ref.

Panthers P1: Start at the 20. Three and out! Talib with a pass defended on 3rd and 9!

Pats P1: Start at the 30. Great punt. 9 play drive. We move the ball nicely, and get everyone involved, except for Gronk but it ends on a Hardy sack on 3rd and 4. Still, the offense looked good.

Panthers P2: Start at the 10. Panthers get a nice drive. It starts with a 2 yard Tolbert run, then Cam hits Smith for 42. After two runs net 7, Cam finds Smith again for 5 on 3rd and 3. After the play, Talib is slow to let go of Smith, and there is a little scrum. Talib is called for a personal foul. It's a good call and brings the ball to the Pats 19. On the next play, Newton finds Olson for 10. Cam keeps it on 1st and goal and gets 4. On second and goal, they run a Wildcat play and get 1 with Williams, but the play was negated by an illegal formation call, and the Panthers call timeout before the new 2nd and goal. On the new second and goal, Cam goes to Olsen, but McCourty defends the pass. Meanwhile, on the other side of the field Talib and Smith scrum more. On 3rd and 9, Cam finds LaFell for the 9 yard TD. 7-0 Panthers.

Pats P2: Start at the 20. We leave points on the field. We start with a miss to Dobson, but a Ridley run and a Danny catch give us a first. Another Ridley run, followed by a drop by Vereen, lets Amendola get a second conversion on 3rd down. Ridley leads the 2nd quarter off with a 13 yard run. Brady gets sacked for a 9 yard loss, but back to back catches give us 17. On 4th and 2, we miss Gronk, but a hands to the face on White gives us the first. Back to back Ridley runs sets up a 3rd and 5, but we miss Danny. However, Hardy yanked Brady's facemask for the first down. Ridley gets stopped for a loss of one,and on the next play fumbles and Carolina gets the ball.

Panthers P3: Start at the 13. They take advantage. Newton finds Olson for 5, then Stewart gets 7 and a first. Newton finds Lafell for 17. After holding them to 4 yards on 2 runs, we lose contain and Cam runs for 24. Again, we stop them on 1st and 2nd downs, but on 3rd and 11, Talib defends a pass to Smith. But, he held, and we give up the first down. Carolina stalls and settles for the 43 yard FG. 10-0 Panthers.

Pats P3: Start at the 20. We get on the board. We lead with a 23 yard play to KT. After Blount gets 2, Brady hits Vereen for 17. A pair of runs by Blount get 11. On the 1st and 10, we miss Mulligan and *after* the play Mankins gets called for a personal foul. That makes it second and 25. A pair of passes to Danny and Gronk get 17 back, and we settle for a 42 yard FG into the wind. 10-3 Carolina.

Panthers P4: Start at the 11. Two plays before the half. An 8 yard pass to LaFell, and a sack by Chandler Jones.

We're hurting ourselves. The game is chippy and I'm not sure why. We don't play them often, it's pretty unusual to see this against a rare opponent. BB needs to get us under control.

Pats P4: Start at the 20. Great drive. We start off with a 10 yard pass to Vereen and a 12 yard Blount run. On that play, Charles Johnson is hurt. After a 9 yard play to Dobson, Brady picks up the first with a keeper. Blount gets 8, and Edelman gets 9 on a screen. Vereen gets 9 on a pass, and Blount picks up 2. However, Carolina had 12 on D, so we take the 5 instead. On the next play, we miss Dobson in the endzone, but he was held by White. That gave us first and goal on the 9. Brady hit Gronk for the TD on the next play. 10-10

Panthers P5: Start at the 19. They answer. 13 play drive. Mostly unimpressive. But, on 3rd and 7, Cam avoids 3 sacks and gets 14. It was an amazing play. They have a 15 yard play to Smith and a 15 yard TD to Olson to end it. 17-10 Panthers. We have to play better on 3rd down.

Pats P5: Start at the 20. 9 play drive. Only two plays - passes of 10 to Dobson, and 36 to KT, were more than 10 yards. A 2 yard Ridley TD run ended it, 17-17 with 12:33 to play. It's very nice seeing KT getting snaps again now that we cut Austin Colley. KT is a solid deep threat as a WR4.

Panthers P6: Start at the 20. Three and out! A sack on second down (Ninkovitch) and a pass defended on 3rd (Ryan), were the key plays.

Pats P6: Start at the Panther 39. 8 plays. 5 Blount runs for a total of 14 yards. 3 passes, 7 to Vereen, 11 to Gronk, and a miss to Dobson. A barely made 26 yard FG gives us the 20-17 lead with 6:32 to play.

Panthers P7: Start at the 17. Long drive for the Panthers with more mistakes by us on 3rd downs. Newton hit Lafell for 4, Talib defended a throw to Smith, then Cam ran for 15 on 3rd and 6. Tolbert for 1, Cam to Williams for 7, Cam for 3 on 3rd and 2. He found Olsen for 15. Then he missed Ginn and Tolbert ran for 3. He missed Olson on 3rd and 7 but McCourty was called for holding. It was a good call. Tolbert then went for 4, and we hit the two minute warning. Cam found Olsen for 6. Carolina was called for a false start on Bell, which made it a first and 15 from the Pats 25. Cam missed Tolbert. 2nd and 15 with 1:09 to play. Cam finds Ginn on the play, for a 25 yard TD. We have :59 seconds and 3 timeouts. 24-20 Panthers.

Pats P7: Start at the 20. Here's the drive:
1st and 10: Brady to Edelman, inc. (:55)
2nd and 10: Brady to Danny, inc (:51)
3rd and 10: Brady to Vereen, inc (:47)
4th and 10: Brady to Gronk, 23! (:40), We call timeout 1.
1st and 10: Brady to Gronk, inc (:35)
2nd and 10: Brady to Amendola, 11 (:29). We call timeout 2.
1st and 10: Brady's pass tipped twice, incomplete (:23)
2nd and 10: Brady to Vereen, off his hands (:17)
3rd and 10: Brady to Dobson, inc. PI on White. Good call (:12)
1st and 10: Brady to Vereen, 11. (:06). Timeout 3 used. 25 yards out.
1st and 10: Brady to Dobson, 7 (:04). At the 18
2nd and 3: Brady picked in the endzone. But, there is a flag! The flag is picked up, but they don't explain why. Kuechly tackled Gronk, and Brady was overheard asking the ref WTF. I think it was a bad call. It looked like PI to me. I don't see how you can grab someone and tackle him and not be called for PI. However, that said, the refs did good this game, and Carolina played great.

Third down:

Pats: 7 for 12
Panthers: 10 for 14

Fourth down:

Pats: 2 for 2

The Smith/Talib duel: Smith: 3 Talib: 3

Amy
11-19-2013, 12:37 AM
On a side note, the non called PI cost both the Pats and my Insane Unicorns possible wins. We both lose by 4.

Pruitt
11-19-2013, 08:13 AM
That final play had me scratching my head. The announcers said that since the ball was underthrown, and there was no way Gronkowski could have caught it, the Ref picked it up.

Which is of course complete BS as Gronkowski was mugged, so the call should have at least been illegal contact. That to me was a replacement ref caliber move.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 08:16 AM
I thought it was a good no-call. There was no chance Gronkowski was catching that ball. Brady underthrew it by 4-5 yards.



For the more rules minded people in the crowd, could the interception also constitute a "tipped pass" even though he caught it, thus negating the PI anyway?

Patrick Sullivan
11-19-2013, 08:26 AM
That final play had me scratching my head. The announcers said that since the ball was underthrown, and there was no way Gronkowski could have caught it, the Ref picked it up.

Which is of course complete BS as Gronkowski was mugged, so the call should have at least been illegal contact. That to me was a replacement ref caliber move.

Maybe 20 years ago was that an uncatchable ball. But Gronk could have gotten there if unmolested, IMHO. It was Bush league for the refs to just say "no call" and bail like that. That was a "we need to throw a flag in case we needed a flag so we can determine the outcome of yet another game because, dammit, refs are stars, too" kind of called non-call call.

In other words, that whole thing was a big bucket of bullsnot.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 08:35 AM
Maybe 20 years ago was that an uncatchable ball. But Gronk could have gotten there if unmolested, IMHO. It was Bush league for the refs to just say "no call" and bail like that. That was a "we need to throw a flag in case we needed a flag so we can determine the outcome of yet another game because, dammit, refs are stars, too" kind of called non-call call.

In other words, that whole thing was a big bucket of bullsnot.


nah, Gronk would have had to run through 2 defenders to have a chance at it. Not to mention the pass was getting picked before Gronk even knew where the ball was.

It was a severely underthrown pass that Gronk made no effort to try and catch.

Patrick Sullivan
11-19-2013, 11:24 AM
rule breakdown: http://www.patspulpit.com/2013/11/19/5121100/rules-breaking-down-the-final-play

solid analysis: http://deadspin.com/why-officials-picked-up-the-flag-and-gave-carolina-the-1467358966

No way that flag is picked up if that game is in Foxboro. Zero.

IMO, Gronk would have at least been in position to have a chance to make a catch (or break up the INT - not that this would have made a difference) if he had not been interfered with.

Correct call, IMO: catchable ball, DPI, Pats ball, one last shot.

Zebras:


The back judge saw that there was contact and the defender was not playing the ball and that led him to throw for defensive pass inference, was the initial call.

There were two officials that came in. One was the umpire and the other one was our side judge and there was a discussion at that point as to the, in essence, the catchability of the ball due to its location. So it was determined at that point in time that when the primary contact occurred on the tight end that the ball, in essence, was coming in underthrown and in essence it was immediate at that point intercepted at the front end of the end zone. So there was a determination that, in essence, uncatchability, that the ball was intercepted at or about the same time the primary contact against the receiver occurred.

Amy
11-19-2013, 11:37 AM
In my mind, the lack of call for DPI was correct. Now, they should have called Carolina for holding, and given us one play from the 13. However, that one moment didn''t decide the game, and it doesn't take away, at all, from one of the best games of football I've seen in a long time.

What stood out to me was our personnel group on that drive. 80 yards, 59 seconds - who did we have out there:

Amendola, Gronk, Edelman, Dobson, and Vereen!

Shane's played two games and has been awesome. Dobson is really emerging. I would have played KT over Julian there, as the Panthers seemed to not be really covering him and he's a deep play guy. But, I can't really say Julian was a bad choice. He's clutch.

Observation: Boyce was returning kickoffs. If he has that job now, wtf is Leon Washington even on the roster? Cut him, and sign someone on defense already.

wxwax
11-19-2013, 02:59 PM
That final play had me scratching my head. The announcers said that since the ball was underthrown, and there was no way Gronkowski could have caught it, the Ref picked it up.

Which is of course complete BS as Gronkowski was mugged, so the call should have at least been illegal contact. That to me was a replacement ref caliber move.

Myself, I thought it was a good call. The way Gronk was steaming towards the back of the end zone, when he looked back it was already too late for him to stop and reverse course and get to where the ball ended up. Uncatchable, so no penalty.

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 03:17 PM
IMO it was PI. At the point when Gronk is grabbed, the ball was still in the air and Gronk was only about a yard or two from where the ball wound up. You're going to say that Gronk, one of the best athletes in the NFL, can't plant his foot and take two steps to make a play on the ball? Mike Periera actually had the best analysis. He said the ball has to be CLEARLY UNCATCHABLE, and that he couldn't say that on that play. He also said once the ref threw the flag, he obviously thought it was PI and then let himself be talked out of it. If it were him, the flag should have stood.

hobbes27
11-19-2013, 03:18 PM
I thought it was a pass interference, or at least holding. I mean if that isn't pass interference, then I guess we'll never see pass interference called on the final play of the game. Gronk might have been able to get to the ball, if he wasn't bear hugged and prevented from going to the ball. Its one thing if the defender was trying to make a play on the ball and ended up in a bear hug with Gronk. Okay, I can see letting that go on the final play. But there was absolutely no effort of that defender to catch the ball.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 03:23 PM
IMO it was PI. At the point when Gronk is grabbed, the ball was still in the air and Gronk was only about a yard or two from where the ball wound up. You're going to say that Gronk, one of the best athletes in the NFL, can't plant his foot and take two steps to make a play on the ball? Mike Periera actually had the best analysis. He said the ball has to be CLEARLY UNCATCHABLE, and that he couldn't say that on that play. He also said once the ref threw the flag, he obviously thought it was PI and then let himself be talked out of it. If it were him, the flag should have stood.


but watch the video. Gronk makes NO EFFORT to come back for the ball. If he had tried to comeback for it, the call probably would have stood. But he kept drifting towards the back of the endzone. I'm not sure Gronk ever really knew where the ball was.


It was a hideous throw by Brady, and the refs did a good job of not bailing him out.

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 03:42 PM
How can he make an effort to go forward with Luke Kuechly hanging on him, forcing him backwards? My other problem with this is that this is called a penalty in every other situation, in every other game, on any other Sunday. They call PI ANY time, especially this year, that a player breathes on a receiver. I think the moment caused the no-call. I have no doubt that it's PI any other time. If not, as pointed out by several analysts, defenders should be licking their chops. When a pass is thrown, just shove the receiver backwards out of the play and when a defender intercepts it, it's not a penalty.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 03:51 PM
How can he make an effort to go forward with Luke Kuechly hanging on him, forcing him backwards? My other problem with this is that this is called a penalty in every other situation, in every other game, on any other Sunday. They call PI ANY time, especially this year, that a player breathes on a receiver. I think the moment caused the no-call. I have no doubt that it's PI any other time. If not, as pointed out by several analysts, defenders should be licking their chops. When a pass is thrown, just shove the receiver backwards out of the play and when a defender intercepts it, it's not a penalty.


Gronk is 6'6" 270lbs. If he had made any effort to come back on that play, you would have noticed it.

tubbs1518
11-19-2013, 04:05 PM
It couldn't have been illegal contact or holding. Neither of those were possible in that instance. Gronk was never getting back to that ball. Therefore it was uncatchable, therefore it couldn't be PI. Game Over.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 04:06 PM
That final play had me scratching my head. The announcers said that since the ball was underthrown, and there was no way Gronkowski could have caught it, the Ref picked it up.

Which is of course complete BS as Gronkowski was mugged, so the call should have at least been illegal contact. That to me was a replacement ref caliber move.


listening to polian now and he makes two good points. Once the ball is in the air it can't be holding or illegal contact. They can only call PI.

Said if this call went to the rules committee, it would probably be a 50/50 split.

Pruitt
11-19-2013, 05:00 PM
If the game was in Foxboro, that flag stays on the ground.

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 05:07 PM
If the game was in Foxboro, that flag stays on the ground.

I said the same thing last night. They make that call 99% of the time.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 05:07 PM
Jerry Austin on NFL Live:

"once a defender touches the ball, pass interference can not be called."

"Further, if you watch Gronkowski's feet, he made absolutely no effort to go back and try and catch the ball. I'm not sure he even knew where the ball was being thrown. "

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 05:23 PM
The PI started before he touched the ball. Gerry Austin's drunk.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 05:30 PM
The PI started before he touched the ball. Gerry Austin's drunk.



I agree that the PI started before the ball was touched, and Austin never claims it didn't, but that's negated by the fact that the ball was deemed uncatchable.


If the ball is deemed uncatchable, any pass interference is negated.

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 05:31 PM
I get that. I have a problem with saying it was uncatchable. It was only uncatchable because of the PI.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 05:32 PM
I get that. I have a problem with saying it was uncatchable. It was only uncatchable because of the PI.


well, that's a judgement call and plenty of people disagree with that.

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 05:48 PM
It has to be CLEARLY uncatchable, and since a majority of people think it's catchable, it's not even debatable that it wasn't clear.

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 05:50 PM
It obviously wasn't CLEARLY uncatchable because the official threw the flag. The moment was too much and he let players/other refs/situation dictate the call.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 06:08 PM
It obviously wasn't CLEARLY uncatchable because the official threw the flag. The moment was too much and he let players/other refs/situation dictate the call.


the official who threw the flag is only watching Gronkowski and Keuchly. That's why the officials conference on calls like this. The other officials told him that it was uncatchable, and the flag was picked up.

That's how it works. The flag was based on the PI, but what changes that is the fact that it was deemed uncatchable by the officials who saw the other part of the play.

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 06:12 PM
There's no possible way that you will ever convince me that was uncatchable. He was a yard from the ball when he got ran over. Awful call. I should point out that I was rooting for Carolina, because a Pats loss helps the Bengals, but that was the wrong call.

mkocs6
11-19-2013, 06:25 PM
We have a .gif:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/196tzguc7b8y2gif/original.gif

If you assume the ball is already in the air--and it pretty much had to be, at that point, because #38 is already looking to make a play--Kuechly basically starts committing his pass interference at more or less a yard away from the spot in the end zone where the ball is ultimately intercepted. I tend to agree that if the ball is uncatchable, it's only because of Kuechly's actions. How many corners locked up in coverage that look much more legitimate and legal than this get called for pass interference because they made no attempt to play the ball? Kuechly never turns around and makes absolutely no attempt to make a play on the ball. He's only concerned with taking Gronk out of the play. Could the receiver have tried harder to come back to the ball? Likely yes, but I don't think we can blame him for that, either. Defensive linemen throw their hands in the air while they're in the process of being held all the time to try to show the holding penalty to the referees, rather than trying to fight through the hold and make a play. We're all probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one. As much as I hate the repeated penalties on defenders trying to make legitimate plays when defending the pass, this looks exactly like the sort of pass interference I could get behind referees calling--whether it takes place in the middle of the second quarter or the last play of the game.

tubbs1518
11-19-2013, 06:25 PM
Of course the guy paid to be in the booth and watch those things is drunk. That would make complete sense. Why didn't I think of that.

tubbs1518
11-19-2013, 06:26 PM
The interception happening short of the player makes it uncatchable. They explained that is the rule last night.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 06:33 PM
There's no possible way that you will ever convince me that was uncatchable. He was a yard from the ball when he got ran over. Awful call. I should point out that I was rooting for Carolina, because a Pats loss helps the Bengals, but that was the wrong call.

see, that's where the disconnect is. The ball wasn't one yard in front of Gronkowski. The ball never got within FOUR YARDS of gronkowski.

tubbs1518
11-19-2013, 06:35 PM
I'd say 4-5 yards easily away.

mkocs6
11-19-2013, 06:40 PM
Are you guys telling us that pass interference can only occur when the ball is physically within a one-yard radius of the receiver? Because a lot of defensive backs find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

tubbs1518
11-19-2013, 06:46 PM
I'm saying it was easily 4-5 yards away from Gronk and there was no chance he was getting to it regardless of Kuechly meaning it was uncatchable and the PI didn't happen.

hobbes27
11-19-2013, 06:57 PM
The interception happening short of the player makes it uncatchable. They explained that is the rule last night.

If that is so, then I have a great idea for what defensive coordinators should do. Get big, strong defensive backs. Then when the ball is in the air, have those defensive backs bear hug the wide receivers and push them 5 yards away from where the ball is being thrown.

There is no way you can call that pass interference, because its uncatchable for the wide receiver, since they are 5 yards away from where the ball is.

ScottDCP
11-19-2013, 07:02 PM
nah, Gronk would have had to run through 2 defenders to have a chance at it. Not to mention the pass was getting picked before Gronk even knew where the ball was.

It was a severely underthrown pass that Gronk made no effort to try and catch.

Disagree completely. Slow motion shows that he had slowed and was redirecting his feet when Keuchly made out with him. And it is possible that the guy who is bigger than any defensive back ever was, with gorilla arms, excellent hands, and a history of catching balls in traffic would have a chance to do it again. He did make an effort to sell the penalty once he onew he couldn't get to the ball, but that was after the penalty had been warranted.

tubbs1518
11-19-2013, 07:08 PM
Straw Arguments are out in full force.

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 07:21 PM
see, that's where the disconnect is. The ball wasn't one yard in front of Gronkowski. The ball never got within FOUR YARDS of gronkowski.

This is irrelevant. What matters is where Gronk could have been if not interfered with.

ScottDCP
11-19-2013, 07:21 PM
Straw Arguments are out in full force.

Hardly. It's a judgement call for everybody. Some judge one way, some another.

vancemeek
11-19-2013, 07:21 PM
If that is so, then I have a great idea for what defensive coordinators should do. Get big, strong defensive backs. Then when the ball is in the air, have those defensive backs bear hug the wide receivers and push them 5 yards away from where the ball is being thrown.

There is no way you can call that pass interference, because its uncatchable for the wide receiver, since they are 5 yards away from where the ball is.

This is exactly what I said, and even analysts were saying last night. If that's the rule, then advantage defense.

mkocs6
11-19-2013, 07:23 PM
My initial post is quite the opposite of a straw man. Pass interference can occur at any time once the ball is in the air and I'm arguing that Kuechly is committing pass interference well before the ball is actually intercepted. You're arguing, I think, that the pass interference only occurred at the same time as the interception and because he's about ten or twelve feet away from the ball at the point, he couldn't have caught it and so the interference is nullified.

If this argument is really about when and where Kuechly's interference begins (as I think it is), I still believe you're wrong, for the reasons I cited in post #28. You and Bengals both, however, keep returning to where Gronk was when the other defender actually intercepts the ball, which I don't think is the right way to approach this and does, at least to some extent, prompt a question about when and under what circumstances you think a defender can actually commit pass interference.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 07:47 PM
Are you guys telling us that pass interference can only occur when the ball is physically within a one-yard radius of the receiver? Because a lot of defensive backs find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


no, but I think it needs to be closer than 4-5yards and in a situation where the receiver doesn't have to osmosis through 2 defenders just to get to the ball.

That's what gets lost in all of this. Even if Keuchley never touches Gronk, there's still 2 defenders BETWEEN Gronk and the ball, which was 4-5 yards underthrown.


It was a craptastic throw. That's the culprit in all of this.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 07:49 PM
Disagree completely. Slow motion shows that he had slowed and was redirecting his feet when Keuchly made out with him. And it is possible that the guy who is bigger than any defensive back ever was, with gorilla arms, excellent hands, and a history of catching balls in traffic would have a chance to do it again. He did make an effort to sell the penalty once he onew he couldn't get to the ball, but that was after the penalty had been warranted.

1) refs don't get the benefit of slow mo replay. It's not a reviewable play (though I do think it should be).

2) I don't agree that Gronk was making an effort to catch that ball.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 07:51 PM
This is irrelevant. What matters is where Gronk could have been if not interfered with.

its the only thing that matters!


The entire reason we're having this conversation is because Brady threw it 4-5yds short. If he throws an even remotely decent pass, the flag stands.

The throw was bloody awful.

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 07:53 PM
My initial post is quite the opposite of a straw man. Pass interference can occur at any time once the ball is in the air and I'm arguing that Kuechly is committing pass interference well before the ball is actually intercepted. You're arguing, I think, that the pass interference only occurred at the same time as the interception and because he's about ten or twelve feet away from the ball at the point, he couldn't have caught it and so the interference is nullified.

If this argument is really about when and where Kuechly's interference begins (as I think it is), I still believe you're wrong, for the reasons I cited in post #28. You and Bengals both, however, keep returning to where Gronk was when the other defender actually intercepts the ball, which I don't think is the right way to approach this and does, at least to some extent, prompt a question about when and under what circumstances you think a defender can actually commit pass interference.



it all comes back to the throw for me mk. Was Gronk interfered with? Absolutely, but BY RULE pass interference is allowed if the ball is deemed uncatchable.

That ball was uncatchable IMO. It was an absolutely horrid throw and that can't be said enough times.


BY RULE the refs got it right.

ScottDCP
11-19-2013, 08:03 PM
If they don't have the be nefit of replay, then why defend the guy a hundred and forty feet away, who is looking at oyher players, for deciding that it wasn't catchable? The guy closest, w by o threw the flag, didn't need it either.

Llook at the replay and read the lips. Ref didn't run down and say "was it catchable," he ran down and said. "He couldn't have caught it, could he?" I support a preferenceby officials to not make a call that changes the outcome of a game if that call is wrong. If it is correct, then it is supoosed to alter the game. It is why they have the flags.

Disclaimer: I want the non-Bills in the AFCE to win two games per year, and maybe a couple more if it helps with postseason hme field math. I dont mnd the occasional bad call going my way. That said, I think the flag was correct and the decision to pick it up was incorrect.

Put another way, IMO the pass was catchable, and by rule it was pass interference.

ScottDCP
11-19-2013, 08:04 PM
And it wasn't a horrible pass. It was short. Look to Minneapolis-St. Paul for horrible throws.

Patrick Sullivan
11-19-2013, 09:09 PM
Gronk was *probably* too far out of position to make the play. With his athleticism, I say he had, at best, a 10% chance of making the catch and maybe a 35% chance of breaking up the INT.

The fact that Kuechly's SMART football play led to the officials' POOR interpretation of the rules COST the Pats an OPPORTUNITY to win is disgraceful. I don't care what all the talking heads are saying. At this point, they are now interested in selling TV ad space.

That was a crap read. That was either holding or DPI. It was also a punk move by the refs to let that go.

Amy
11-19-2013, 09:34 PM
The last play should not detract, at all, from the amazing game that was played. This was a great game. IMO, the real issue is how Blakeman addressed the issue 'There is no foul, game over' That's the real issue. As the ref, after a flag was thrown, and there was a long conference, he should have given a real explaination. However, again, there is too much focus on this one play. The game was called well the whole way, and this is one of the better crews in the NFL.

I would have called holding here, not DPI, but, again, look at the game as a whole and just revel in a great game!

Bengals1181
11-19-2013, 10:56 PM
The last play should not detract, at all, from the amazing game that was played. This was a great game. IMO, the real issue is how Blakeman addressed the issue 'There is no foul, game over' That's the real issue. As the ref, after a flag was thrown, and there was a long conference, he should have given a real explaination. However, again, there is too much focus on this one play. The game was called well the whole way, and this is one of the better crews in the NFL.

I would have called holding here, not DPI, but, again, look at the game as a whole and just revel in a great game!


I agree, the referee's explanation was not lengthy enough.


Also, it would have been nice to see the ref stand up to being cussed out by Brady.

mikesteelnation1
11-20-2013, 04:31 AM
it all comes back to the throw for me mk. Was Gronk interfered with? Absolutely, but BY RULE pass interference is allowed if the ball is deemed uncatchable.

That ball was uncatchable IMO. It was an absolutely horrid throw and that can't be said enough times.


BY RULE the refs got it right.

You are ABSOLUTELY 100% in ruling and what you saw.. kuechley had body position on gronk in relation to the ball. Even if he quit running and just put his hands in the air, gronk had ZERO play on that ball. He was 100% running upfield the ENTIRE time. He didn't try to plant and come back to the ball. Even after contact he kept running forward. Even if he wanted to plant and run back (which he didn't do), he would have run Smack into kueckley. Ball still picked.

If you honestly think gronk had ANY play on that throw, even if Luke threw his hands in the air, you're on drugs. Luke's body was DIRECTLY in the path gronk had to the ball. Does he have super hero powers that allow him to move through solid objects like they weren't there?? He can't, we all know that.

Is gronk a SUPER special athletic freak?? Yup, he sure is. So is kueckley, and Luke had position before any physical contact. A position that would have made it impossible for gronk to even have a sliver of a chance to catch that ball.

Great non call. It was completely uncatchable... Gronk not even trying to come back for a bad pass, and even if he tried and his defender threw up his hands and stood there, he couldn't!!! The defender was in his path to the ball. Even if he tried to fight for the ball he had ZERO CHANCE!!

Should have been defensive holding by rule, and that would have been a ticky tack call. It wasn't PI, and you can't possibly argue it was. If you think so, you either don't know what you saw, or don't understand the rule. Sorry to be so harsh, but I'm just sayin...

iwatt
11-20-2013, 06:39 AM
The last play should not detract, at all, from the amazing game that was played. This was a great game. IMO, the real issue is how Blakeman addressed the issue 'There is no foul, game over' That's the real issue. As the ref, after a flag was thrown, and there was a long conference, he should have given a real explaination. However, again, there is too much focus on this one play. The game was called well the whole way, and this is one of the better crews in the NFL.

I would have called holding here, not DPI, but, again, look at the game as a whole and just revel in a great game!

Yup, if anything should have been called its holding, not DPI. And the extra 5 yards I think raised the odds of winning by the Pats by 8 percent, to about 35%, using historic data. And the Panthers have abetter than average rdd zone defense, so maybe even less in reality.

If the flag never gets thrown, nothing happens except in some Boston bar. If the Flag is not picked up, but well explained, maybe the reaction is less.

Nancy
11-20-2013, 09:54 AM
If the flag never gets thrown, nothing happens except in some Boston bar. If the Flag is not picked up, but well explained, maybe the reaction is less.

Which gets back to the root of the problem with the officiating this season. If one player gives another a dirty look, someone drops a flag, the officials have a conference, conclude that they cannot call a penalty for stink eye, and pick up the flag. Once that flag is dropped, if you pick it up you automatically piss off at least one team and their fans. It annoys me that the officials obviously allow a game's location to determine their handling of difficult calls. Last time I checked, the rules were the same in Charlotte as they are in Foxboro.
Kuechly made a great play on Gronk. He did what he had to do to prevent a TD. I don't think there's really a chance that Gronk catches that ball, but Kuechly pretty clearly impeded him before he bear-hugged him. I don't think it was a terrible call; if it had gone the other way, it wouldn't have been a terrible call either. The way it was handled was horrible and has really overshadowed what was a terrific game.
The big question around here is why they didn't bother to call Marcus Cannon for leg-whipping Charles Johnson. What a cheap shot. Johnson has a sprained MCL. If he's out, that hurts.

Bengals1181
11-20-2013, 11:18 AM
Yup, if anything should have been called its holding, not DPI. And the extra 5 yards I think raised the odds of winning by the Pats by 8 percent, to about 35%, using historic data. And the Panthers have abetter than average rdd zone defense, so maybe even less in reality.

If the flag never gets thrown, nothing happens except in some Boston bar. If the Flag is not picked up, but well explained, maybe the reaction is less.

once the ball is in the air it can't be holding though. The contact occured after the ball was in the air. That takes defensive holding and illegal contact off the table.

The only option was PI, and that was negated by the uncatchable ruling.

Trumpetbdw
11-20-2013, 01:11 PM
My biggest issue is that there was contact, and a flag was thrown. The ball wasn't uncatchable in the sense that it wasn't overthrown, wasn't OOB, and was only uncatchable as a result of defenders being in the proper position. I'm not sure if a ball can be ruled uncatchable simply because of good defense prior to contact being made, but if it can be, I've never seen that ruling before. My problem isn't as much about the flag being thrown or not thrown, it's about a thrown flag being picked up. Picking it up without a full explanation made it look bad.

However, I don't think a flag should have been thrown in the first place. Davis was in perfect position underneath, and Kuechley had perfect coverage on Gronk. When Gronk turned, Kuechley made it look worse by holding him, but he was already in perfect position prior to the hold. In order for Gronk to be able to come close to making a play on the ball, he would have had to plow through/interfere with Kuechley.

Kuechley did not hold because Gronk beat him, or was out of position. He played it perfectly, then for some unknown reason, hugged Gronk when he turned around, but by that point, there was zero need to grab him. I don't know why Kuechley decided to hold, but the hold itself had no relevance to the play. The exact same result would have happened either way, which makes me say that it was a good no call.

iwatt
11-20-2013, 02:04 PM
once the ball is in the air it can't be holding though. The contact occured after the ball was in the air. That takes defensive holding and illegal contact off the table.

The only option was PI, and that was negated by the uncatchable ruling.

Thank you. The if-when flow chart is confusing me :D

Pruitt
11-20-2013, 04:27 PM
On a basically unrelated note - congratulations to Nancy. She must be in Panther heaven at the moment.

Nancy
11-20-2013, 05:00 PM
On a basically unrelated note - congratulations to Nancy. She must be in Panther heaven at the moment.

Oh yeah....it's been a fun couple of days. But of course, I don't believe it can last. I know better. The Panthers will lose to the Dolphins in much the same manner that the Bengals and Colts lost to the Dolphins. It's inevitable.

wxwax
11-20-2013, 05:34 PM
Oh yeah....it's been a fun couple of days. But of course, I don't believe it can last. I know better. The Panthers will lose to the Dolphins in much the same manner that the Bengals and Colts lost to the Dolphins. It's inevitable.

I agree, huge trap game after two massive wins.

Bengals1181
11-20-2013, 06:14 PM
Oh yeah....it's been a fun couple of days. But of course, I don't believe it can last. I know better. The Panthers will lose to the Dolphins in much the same manner that the Bengals and Colts lost to the Dolphins. It's inevitable.


IMO the Bengals don't lose to the Dolphins if that's not a Thursday game.