Posted on 11/19/2013 8:08:13 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
The New England Patriots lost to the Carolina Panthers 24-20 after a controversial ending on Monday Night Football. On the final play of the game, an official threw a flag after Carolina linebacker Luke Kuechly appeared to interfere with New England tight end Rob Gronkowski in the end zone. If the pass interference penalty was called, the Patriots would have had one untimed play from the one-yard line to win the game. But the officials ended up picking up the flag, declaring the game over, and running off the field without an explanation. Tom Brady was furious after the game, chasing down the officials and cursing them out in the tunnel. There was a ton of confusion about this. ESPN's in-house refereeing consultant said it wasn't pass interference, but everyone else seemed to think it was a clear penalty.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
“And Brady will shred Denver’s defense which in no way compares to Carolina’s.”
I suspect both offenses might have free reign passing-wise. Denver’s defense hasnt exactly been the best, and the Patriots are missing the middle of their line and have run out of Cornerbacks.
Running at 16 miles per hour into the end zone, Gronk begins to decelerate nearly a full second before the ball arrives. Kuechly makes contact with Gronk a third of a second later, meaning contact happened 2/3 of a second before the ball was intercepted.
Sport Science projects that untouched, Gronk would have been able to decelerate from 16 mph to 0 mph in roughly a half-second. That would have given the Patriots tight end time to use his 8-foot-3 reach to make a play on the ball. Of course, he still would have had safety Robert Lester, who ultimately intercepted the ball, to contend with.
I note that the NFL supported the refs ruling...by saying the contact from Kueley was at the same time as when the ball arrived - which just isnt a plausible description.
Defensive holding, five yards and automatic first down.
“The ball, just like a player, is in bounds until it/he touches the ground out of bounds. Why is that challenging to understand?”
I get it - I understand the rule, and so do you.
Again, I was talking about when the ball is out of bounds (the plane of the field), but the players feet are in bounds. It’s a catch.
I believe that to be inconsistent with a ball being in the end zone (crossed the plane of the end zone), but feet are not.
All I’m saying is that the rules are different for the end zone (crossing the plane, feet don’t have to be in the end zone), and the sideline (ball doesn’t have to be in plane, feet must be in).
I just pointing out that it’s inconsistent, and I would like to see it changed. I would like to see some part of the ball-carriers body touch the ground in the end zone in order for it to be considered a touchdown.
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.