non pass interference at the end of NE vs CAR

[highsider5 36]

good answer from Tom, of course he can afford that reply LOL... FWIW a five yard PI would have been fine, since CAR would have likely stuffed that play too, all Tom is alluding to is the panthers kicked their butts all game and pretty much earned the win call or not.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

good answer from Tom, of course he can afford that reply LOL... FWIW a five yard PI would have been fine, since CAR would have likely stuffed that play too, all Tom is alluding to is the panthers kicked their butts all game and pretty much earned the win call or not.

Only an idiot would read that statement as "the Panthers kicked our butts all game."

 

Fact is Pats were up 20-17 midway through the fourth.

 

But at the end of the day the Panthers just made a few more plays and a few less mistakes. THAT is what Brady was "alluding to."

[highsider5 36]

fact is scoreboard, is that what you're alluding to?

[BTL99 34]

correct call for sure...no idea why people are crying over this

[IGotWorms 3,315]

fact is scoreboard, is that what you're alluding to?

What I'm alluding to is that you're an idiot if you think the Pats "got their butts kicked" all game. It was quite close and Carolina just made a few more plays. Also they did not turn the ball over--first time in 36 games the Pats didn't force a turnover.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

No pass interference...

But it should be holding/illegal contact on the defense..

[jgcrawfish 232]

Full disclosure: I can't fockin stand New England and don't mind seeing EVERY call go against them from now until eternity for their whining and cheating ways of old. That being said, that call was crap. If Kuechly wasn't holding Gronk and pushing him to the back of the endzone it's very possible that he could have fought back to the ball just like the other defender did, meaning there was no way it was uncatchable. As much as I wanted to see the Pats lose, the refs blew that call completely.

[highsider5 36]

of course the ball was not catchable... if you were in a full blown bear hug, you couldn't catch it either

[Thornton Melon 544]

If Kuechly wasn't holding Gronk and pushing him to the back of the endzone it's very possible that he could have fought back to the ball just like the other defender did, meaning there was no way it was uncatchable.

 

This would be true, if Gronk was a cartoon character.

[Durka Durka? 2]

Also, Tom Brady is a class act:

 

“I didn’t really see the play either so I don’t know whether it was a good call or a bad call. But we had plenty of chances. I’m not making any excuses. [Gronkowski] was kind of weaving in and out of there and I didn’t really want to throw it over his head and out of bounds. So I was a little indecisive. It wasn’t a great throw. No excuses. It should have been a better throw.”

 

It's nice that he said the right thing after the game was over, after he had time to cool off. But if you watched this game, there was a LOT of footage of brady yelling at the refs after that play. Then following the refs and continuing to yell as they ignored him and exited the stadium.

 

It's true that its hard to fault the guy for being in the heat of the moment. He's a competitor. And while I won't criticize him for it, I certainly wouldn't say he was a class act either.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

 

It's nice that he said the right thing after the game was over, after he had time to cool off. But if you watched this game, there was a LOT of footage of brady yelling at the refs after that play. Then following the refs and continuing to yell as they ignored him and exited the stadium.

 

It's true that its hard to fault the guy for being in the heat of the moment. He's a competitor. And while I won't criticize him for it, I certainly wouldn't say he was a class act either.

The refs deserved to get yelled at. They didn't even explain the (non) call. At least hop on the ol' intercom and explain that the ball wasn't catchable (assuming that was their rationale) before fleeing the field.

 

I mean that was the damnedest thing, they immediately ran off the field even though they were IN CAROLINA.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Can pass interference be called on a tipped ball that happened in front of the offensive reciever?

 

Not if the tip happens before the contact.

In this case...the contact with Kuechly is before the ball is intercepted.

 

Again...that said, Gronk had zero chance to catch that ball even if he is not touched. He is running back/sideways to a spot...the DB has already broke on the ball when actual "mugging" contact is made with Gronk.

The laws of physics pretty much won't let gronk stop, change directions in time...and go through another person to get to the ball.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Also, Tom Brady is a class act:

 

“I didn’t really see the play either so I don’t know whether it was a good call or a bad call. But we had plenty of chances. I’m not making any excuses. [Gronkowski] was kind of weaving in and out of there and I didn’t really want to throw it over his head and out of bounds. So I was a little indecisive. It wasn’t a great throw. No excuses. It should have been a better throw.”

 

You mean he is a class act after he cussed out the refs in front of the cameras as followed them into the tunnel?

[jgcrawfish 232]

 

This would be true, if Gronk was a cartoon character.

 

I'm not sure where you're headed with this, since the defender that intercepted the ball was at the exact same place in the endzone that Gronk was when it was thrown. He undercut to make the INT, which tells me it's totally possible that Gronk could have come back to the ball as well...as long as he wasn't being hugged and pushed to the back of the endzone by Kuechly. Again, I can't stand the Pats...this was just a flat out bad call. Was it as egregious as the Golden Tate offensive penalty last year year? Hell no, and that one somehow didn't called either. But fact is both were fouls.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

I'm not sure where you're headed with this, .

 

He is saying that Gronk would've had to stop on a dime after running full speed, plant, and reverse field 5 yards and catch the ball over the Panther Defender that was already there. All in the one second between the Keuchly contact and when the ball was intercepted.

 

No human being on the face of the earth can do that, not even Gronk. And the refs correctly came to the same conclusion.

[Durka Durka? 2]

No human being on the face of the earth can do that, not even Gronk.

 

Agreed, Gronk was not catching that pass regardless of what Kuechly was doing

[jgcrawfish 232]

 

He is saying that Gronk would've had to stop on a dime after running full speed, plant, and reverse field 5 yards and catch the ball over the Panther Defender that was already there. All in the one second between the Keuchly contact and when the ball was intercepted.

 

No human being on the face of the earth can do that, not even Gronk. And the refs correctly came to the same conclusion.

 

 

 

Agreed, Gronk was not catching that pass regardless of what Kuechly was doing

 

 

Apparently other people besides me think you guys are idiots...

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1856777-patriots-vs-panthers-inside-the-controversy-that-ended-monday-night-football

 

enjoy

[Durka Durka? 2]

 

 

 

 

Apparently other people besides me think you guys are idiots...

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1856777-patriots-vs-panthers-inside-the-controversy-that-ended-monday-night-football

 

enjoy

 

Here is the top comment on that article:

 

You cherry-picked the frame angle to make your case. On the full-motion video and other angles it's clear that ball was headed about two feet to the left and six feet short of where Gronk is standing. Simply picking a still that makes the ball seem destined for Gronk's location is a sorry way to try to make a point.

 

And I agree completely. Show the video if you want to make your case.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

I'm not sure where you're headed with this, since the defender that intercepted the ball was at the exact same place in the endzone that Gronk was when it was thrown. He undercut to make the INT, which tells me it's totally possible that Gronk could have come back to the ball as well...as long as he wasn't being hugged and pushed to the back of the endzone by Kuechly. Again, I can't stand the Pats...this was just a flat out bad call. Was it as egregious as the Golden Tate offensive penalty last year year? Hell no, and that one somehow didn't called either. But fact is both were fouls.

 

The difference is the defender that intercepted it was not moving to the back of the endzone when the ball was thrown...did not have momentum going that way...and he was already cutting to the ball when Kuechly makes contact with him.

 

It is not possible by the laws of physics that Gronk could have stopped on a dime...changed directions...and made a play on anything other than the DB's back.

In which case he would likely get the offensive PI call ending the game anyway.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

This would be true, if Gronk was a cartoon character.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

No focking way in hell (other than Warner Bros) a guy Gronk's size doubles back and gets that low. Hell the DB had to pretty much go to the ground to get it and he was 4-5 feet in front of Gronk with Gronk going the other way.

 

Sorry but the only bad part of that call was that the flag was thrown to begin with. If the receiver can't catch the ball because Tom Terrific blew the throw or Gronk misread the route, it's a moot point.

 

That being said...............loved the FF win (opponent had Carolina DEF but NE scored just enough) AND the Pats lose. Baby Jesus loves me..............

[Dan 59]

 

I'm not sure where you're headed with this, since the defender that intercepted the ball was at the exact same place in the endzone that Gronk was when it was thrown. He undercut to make the INT, which tells me it's totally possible that Gronk could have come back to the ball as well...as long as he wasn't being hugged and pushed to the back of the endzone by Kuechly. Again, I can't stand the Pats...this was just a flat out bad call. Was it as egregious as the Golden Tate offensive penalty last year year? Hell no, and that one somehow didn't called either. But fact is both were fouls.

 

Not sure where the venom is coming from; your next post being just as aggressive. Feel free to disagree, but Durka has a point, as well. Picking a still that supports your argument is specious, at best.

[jgcrawfish 232]

 

Not sure where the venom is coming from; your next post being just as aggressive. Feel free to disagree, but Durka has a point, as well. Picking a still that supports your argument is specious, at best.

 

I'm not saying that Gronk would have made the catch, nor do I necessarily agree with all that the author of that article had to say, or his use of props. The bottom line is that the defender interfered with a receiver on a catchable ball. Welker is also in the pattern and potentially could have had a chance to catch it. This wasn't a ball thrown 15 ft out of bounds, it was a ball that was thrown to a receiver in the field of play who was not allowed to even make a move toward the ball, regardless of whether he could/would/should catch it.

 

I don't have a horse in this race, and my preference was/is for New England to lose that game and as many other games as possible.

[Thornton Melon 544]

 

I'm not sure where you're headed with this, since the defender that intercepted the ball was at the exact same place in the endzone that Gronk was when it was thrown. He undercut to make the INT, which tells me it's totally possible that Gronk could have come back to the ball as well...as long as he wasn't being hugged and pushed to the back of the endzone by Kuechly. Again, I can't stand the Pats...this was just a flat out bad call. Was it as egregious as the Golden Tate offensive penalty last year year? Hell no, and that one somehow didn't called either. But fact is both were fouls.

 

If I were you, I would go find my high school physics teacher, and punch him in the face.

[parrot 789]

 

I'm not saying that Gronk would have made the catch, nor do I necessarily agree with all that the author of that article had to say, or his use of props. The bottom line is that the defender interfered with a receiver on a catchable ball. Welker is also in the pattern and potentially could have had a chance to catch it. This wasn't a ball thrown 15 ft out of bounds, it was a ball that was thrown to a receiver in the field of play who was not allowed to even make a move toward the ball, regardless of whether he could/would/should catch it.

 

I don't have a horse in this race, and my preference was/is for New England to lose that game and as many other games as possible.

 

Oh, if only Welker were in that pattern.

[Runningriot1966 6]

I could care less one way or the other here, however what I saw on the replay is the defender who intercepted made his cut for the ball before there was any contact by the linebacker on Gronk. In fact Gronk wasn't even looking back at the time. It was clearly holding and or interference but the DB or S had basically intercepted just when the contract began with the linebacker.

Not true, there was a still photo in the news yesterday and the ball was 30 feet away and Gronk was already being raped and pushed off the route to the ball.

[Runningriot1966 6]

 

Not if the tip happens before the contact.

In this case...the contact with Kuechly is before the ball is intercepted.

 

Again...that said, Gronk had zero chance to catch that ball even if he is not touched. He is running back/sideways to a spot...the DB has already broke on the ball when actual "mugging" contact is made with Gronk.

The laws of physics pretty much won't let gronk stop, change directions in time...and go through another person to get to the ball.

Wrong! He was being pushed back/sideways by the defender while the ball was in flight. Of course the ball is uncatchable if you are getting tackled while the ball is in the air. Pass interference plain and simple and anyone that thinks different is just a NE or Brady hater.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Wrong! He was being pushed back/sideways by the defender while the ball was in flight. Of course the ball is uncatchable if you are getting tackled while the ball is in the air. Pass interference plain and simple and anyone that thinks different is just a NE or Brady hater.

 

He was still running backwards on his own when the ball left Brady's hand.

He was not yet stopped...or coming to a stop when first contact is made a split second before the INT occurs.

[benglish88 2]

They should rename this thread: Beating A Dead Horse 101.

 

I will simplify it:

 

1. NO WAY Gronkowski catches that ball.

 

2. Even in slow mo replay, he still would not catch that ball.

 

3. IF, he tried to "sell" the PI a little bit more instead of continuing the same route--(maybe he merits a stronger case).

 

He didn't, Patriots lost the game, end of story.

[shutdown 40]

The ball being "catchable" is a judgement call be the ref. It doesn't have to be in the stands or 10 yards out of bounds. It's a subjective call, meaning there is no measurable definition of a "catchable" pass. Therefore the referee's judgment is the standard. He felt that Gronk could not have stopped his momentum, fought back through the panther LB and beat the panther DB to the point of interception. I don't think that was an unreasonable assumption. I don't know if it is the right assumption but neither does anyone else.

 

At the end of the day, Brady admitted he underthrew Gronk. I'm not sure why everyone is so adamant that a bad pass by a QB should have drawn a PI flag and given NE a chance to win the game. It was a BAD throw. If he makes a good throw they get the call and the chance to win. I want to see players make plays to win the game. Maybe Gronk was denied that chance but I think there is a lot of evidence that he wasn't making that play. But Brady had the opportunity to MAKE A PLAY and he didn't, he left it short and didn't get the call and I'm okay with that.

[jgcrawfish 232]

More ammo against the dipsh!ts who cling to the idea that it wasn't a catchable ball...

 

[benglish88 2]

The only dipsh*t is you if you believe that ball is catchable.

 

Flat out silly you are.

[jgcrawfish 232]

The only dipsh*t is you if you believe that ball is catchable.

 

Flat out silly you are.

Spoken like a true dipsh!t. Watch the video. There's no cherry picking, no trick camera angles...only you looking foolish.

[Dan 59]

A shame that a topic like this was discussed so maturely for so very long, and has now degenerated into name-calling and ultimatum talk designed to belittle to win.

 

Oh well. It was good while it lasted.

[parrot 789]

The ball being "catchable" is a judgement call be the ref. It doesn't have to be in the stands or 10 yards out of bounds. It's a subjective call, meaning there is no measurable definition of a "catchable" pass. Therefore the referee's judgment is the standard. He felt that Gronk could not have stopped his momentum, fought back through the panther LB and beat the panther DB to the point of interception. I don't think that was an unreasonable assumption. I don't know if it is the right assumption but neither does anyone else.

 

At the end of the day, Brady admitted he underthrew Gronk. I'm not sure why everyone is so adamant that a bad pass by a QB should have drawn a PI flag and given NE a chance to win the game. It was a BAD throw. If he makes a good throw they get the call and the chance to win. I want to see players make plays to win the game. Maybe Gronk was denied that chance but I think there is a lot of evidence that he wasn't making that play. But Brady had the opportunity to MAKE A PLAY and he didn't, he left it short and didn't get the call and I'm okay with that.

 

As per the rules, the ball does not have to be deemed "catchable" it has to be deemed "clearly uncatchable". Those are different things.

[edjr 5,564]

The hail mary that the kid from Auburn made this weekend and the hail mary AJ Green caught 2 weekends ago, were uncatchable I guess? Oh wait it took a crazy bounce and they actually did catch it?

[IGotWorms 3,315]

 

As per the rules, the ball does not have to be deemed "catchable" it has to be deemed "clearly uncatchable". Those are different things.

Also the guy said Gronk wouldn't have been able to fight his way through the linebacker. Well he wouldn't have had to if the linebacker wasn't impeding his path to the ball by holding him in a bear hug.

 

YET I still come back to the fact that Gronk didn't sell the penalty. I know it's sorta lame on one hand to say he has to "sell" it, but really, that would've been a much easier call to make had Gronk valiantly tried to come back to the ball instead of just allowing himself to be guided away from it.

[nospk 230]

In hindsight this probably would've been the best call to make

I was pulling for a take-over, no loss of down. Put the time back on the clock.

[benglish88 2]

A shame that a topic like this was discussed so maturely for so very long, and has now degenerated into name-calling and ultimatum talk designed to belittle to win.

 

Oh well. It was good while it lasted.

Yep, I agree. It can also be seen that the poster making a blanket statement calling those who agree with the call "dipsh*ts".

At the end of the day it is an opinion, but calling others names shows what that poster is all about.

 

I am done with it, don't have a dog in the fight.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Guys, they are not going to change the score. Referee's make judgement calls all the time. The back judge saw contact and correctly asked the side judges (who had the best angles) if the ball was uncatchable as it was underthrown. They judged it was in uncatchable so they picked up the flag. The End.

 

It's was an interesting topic as we can sit here and try to guage "could Gronk of stopped, pivoted, and dove to the ball where it was thrown?" etc. Obviously Patriot fans will think it was 'possible'. Nobody should think it was remotely probable he was catching that ball, but none of that matters.

 

The refs made a judgement call (like they do all the time). People need to live with it, Geebus. I'm sure the Pats will be on the good end of a judgement call here pretty soon too. They have a knack for that.

[Cruzer 1,992]

The refs made a judgement call (like they do all the time). People need to live with it, Geebus. I'm sure the Pats will be on the good end of a judgement call here pretty soon too. They have a knack for that.

I personally think it was a defensive hold - the refs either let it go or just flat out missed it. Happens - as a matter of fact it happened at the end of the Saints game earlier in the year. Solder hooks his guy so bad he damn near tears his head off, refs let it go - Brady throws game winning td. The Pats got their call - just happened to come a few weeks earlier.

 

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/assets/3384233/patriotway.gif