Posted on 11/19/2013 8:08:13 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
“Brady admitted as much after the game”
In post game intviews Brady pretty much always blames himself if anything could have gone better no matter how far a stretch. What Brady said this time was that the ball could have been thrown over the top where Gronkowski could have used his height. The ball was at a perfectly catchable location had the interfering linebacker not been there, and had the one that did catch the ball blocked out.
I’m a pats fan, but your Bronco’s look REALLY good this year. Adding welker was a very good move, with a top QB like manning, that’s a damn tough combo, and it’s certainly not his only option.
Five yards is at the END of the push. Mark where the interference began and where the ball was caught. That distance was about 2 feet, waist high.
No, a defensive holding call is normally a 15 yard penalty or half the distance to the goal, and is an automatic first down.
Simple. the receivers feet were in bounds, and he caught the ball when the ball was actually beyond the end zone line (in the back of the end zone). It’s a catch. Happens all the time. For that matter - the ball can be out of bounds - but it’s still a catch if the players feet are in bounds. See the rule inconsistency?
“If he’d have tried to turn back towards the line of scrimmage (coming back to the ball) he’s have been interfered with, but he continue moving towards the end line on his own the whole time. “
Watch again. He was looping back, and was pushed by the trailing guy who was behind him, then redirected about 90 degrees by the linebacker who then kept driving.
I’ve watched it many time, he was VOLUNTARILY running to the back of the endzone, which took him out of the play. The trailing guy barely touched him and he never got redirected.
The receiver was interfered with whilst the pigskin was in the air and body blocked in a way by the DB toward the back boundary line by the time the ball was intercepted; however, the contact began several feet earlier in his route and it can't be known with certainty that he could NOT have made a play on the ball. I'd guess the chances were not better than ~25%, but the rules of governing non-catchable official judgement exclude any possibility.
Plainly that would not accurately reflect what occurred on the play.
When they played the Saints earlier this year, in the last 2 minutes of the game, the refs gave the Pats an extra time out and didn’t call an obvious holding call against their defense. They won by 3 points in the last few seconds of the game.
Are you a referee? I’ll defer if you are but I can’t agree with the rule regardless.
By that definition a receiver can be interfered with, causing him to not get open, resulting with a QB with nobody to throw to leading to a (coverage) sack (never throws the ball) where the defensive player isn’t called for pass interference. What if the NE receiver had been 1ft closer? Or 5ft closer? At what point could you reasonably say “too far away?” especially when the interference started long before the ball got there? I’ve never seen this in my 30 yrs watching the game. Doesn’t this mean that, in general, one defensive player can interfere allowing another to intercept with the assertion, “the receiver was never going to be able to catch the ball!”? How do you know?
I see flags thrown all the time at the sight of interference, regardless of whether the ball has been thrown or to whom.
Indeed!
You can’t say it wasn’t pass interference because the guy couldn’t have caught the pass—because of the interference!
Bwahaha!
The trailing guy pushed Gronkowski as he slowed and turned, but did not redirect him, but was important because he was behind the TE and blocked out until Kueley completely redirected Gronkowski, wrapped his arms around him, and drove him backwards from a point about 2’ from the catch point to a point about 5-6 yards away along a completely different vector.
Nobody redirected Gronk, he continued to move in the same direction the whole time. Sorry but you’re suffering homer hallucinations and seeing things that are not there.
There’s plenty of room for subjective differences of opinion on lots of details, but to claim that no one redirected Gronkiowski is not one of them. The redirect is almost 90 degrees.
No he wasn’t. You’re hallucinating. And nothing I say will change your mind, and nothing you say will share your hallucination. Have fun.
Someone on ESPN pointed out something that I think is relevant and that I hadn’t thought of before: those of us who have been defending the call have assumed the ball was uncatchable by Gronkowski because it was intercepted cleanly by the defender. BUT, defenders often fail to hold on to balls they “should have” intercepted. AND, if the ball was NOT intercepted cleanly, if the defender had the ball bounce off him into the air, Gronkowski MIGHT easily have had a play on it. So I’m now thinking that pass interference should have been upheld. You cannot assume the interception when making the call.
If the ball bounces off the defender into the air it’s a tip ball and interference rules go away. And really we aren’t assuming the interception would succeed, we’re seeing that the ball was nose diving into the ground at least 10 feet in front of Gronk and he had been moving to the back line through the whole play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.