It was NOT pass interference

[BriGuy]

Let's not confuse the matter. I do believe that the uncatchable part refers to the player that was interfered with, not just any player on the field. But you are right that it was not clearly uncatchable for Gronk and sports science got it right. I'd say Gronk had maybe a 10-15% chance of catching it. That's more than enough to make it not uncatchable.

We agree it was catchable but the rulebook actually says it has to be "clearly uncatchable by the involved players." So it's more than just the intended receiver.

[wrongturn]

I think the uncatchable exeption needs to be clarified in the next version of NFL rules. Currently it is really up to the ref's interpretation.

Since Gronk was close to the action, there are at least two scenarios that would be unfair to Gronk's team if no foul is called.

1) He could make a play to cause the guy to drop the ball, so to make it incomplete instead of interception.
2) He could catch the ball if it is somehow bounced of that guy.

Since he was totally wrapped up, he was unable to do either.

[SBR_John]

I think the uncatchable exeption needs to be clarified in the next version of NFL rules. Currently it is really up to the ref's interpretation.

Since Gronk was close to the action, there are at least two scenarios that would be unfair to Gronk's team if no foul is called.

1) He could make a play to cause the guy to drop the ball, so to make it incomplete instead of interception.
2) He could catch the ball if it is somehow bounced of that guy.

Since he was totally wrapped up, he was unable to do either.

Your first point is interesting. You are correct the receiver was denied a path to the ball to break up the interception.

Still, the receivers momentum would have made stopping and falling to his left a desperate attempt to make the catch and that assumes the ball wasn't touched by a defender which it was.

The "no call" was the right call. If the pass was 3 feet over to the right and 4 feet higher NE would have gotten the call no questions asked. You cant throw a ball short and wide into dbl coverage and have the refs bail you out.

[d2bets]

Your first point is interesting. You are correct the receiver was denied a path to the ball to break up the interception.

Still, the receivers momentum would have made stopping and falling to his left a desperate attempt to make the catch and that assumes the ball wasn't touched by a defender which it was.

The "no call" was the right call. If the pass was 3 feet over to the right and 4 feet higher NE would have gotten the call no questions asked. You cant throw a ball short and wide into dbl coverage and have the refs bail you out.

It woulnd't have been the refs bailing out, it was Kuechly who committed the PI. If the pass was uncatchable (it wasn't) then he shouldn't have allowed himself to interfere.

wrongturn made a great point. If this wasn't a 4th down end of game situation, would it still have been a proper no call in your book? Don't you also have to conclude that Gronk couldn't have broken up the interception? And if you agree that he could have broken it up then how can you possibly say it was uncatchable. If you can break it up it could be tipped up and caught too. Uncatchab;e needs to be limited to clearly uncatchable situations (way over player's head or into the ground 15 feet in front). Not situations where it's merely unlikely.

[vividjohn45]

is tommy brady bisexual?

depends what the spread is

[vividjohn45]

mother fukker carried him out of the back of the endzone

it wasnt closer b/c the dude was completely taken off his route.

Yeah. Sbrjohn stirring the pot the wrong way. There is no dispute. Pass interference. Gronk is a super athlete who ducks pornstars. He could of caught that

[vividjohn45]

Guys who say gronk could not of caught that are placing themselves in gronks shoes. Ordinary joes.

[vividjohn45]

Wishing like hell a pornstar wuld go down on them. But it aint never gonnahappen cuz they joes,

[vividjohn45]

In other words pass interference

[Big Bear]

had a discussion with some guys about this play tonight

most agree that if this play not had happened at the end of the game they would
have called the penalty.

Also Gronk did a really poor job fighting his way back to the ball.

it almost looked like Gronk didnt care that Kuechly completely took him off his route.

[manny24]

Bear sharp

Bear what do you have cooked up for the Denver game skin?

[SBR_John]

It woulnd't have been the refs bailing out, it was Kuechly who committed the PI. If the pass was uncatchable (it wasn't) then he shouldn't have allowed himself to interfere.

wrongturn made a great point. If this wasn't a 4th down end of game situation, would it still have been a proper no call in your book? Don't you also have to conclude that Gronk couldn't have broken up the interception? And if you agree that he could have broken it up then how can you possibly say it was uncatchable. If you can break it up it could be tipped up and caught too. Uncatchab;e needs to be limited to clearly uncatchable situations (way over player's head or into the ground 15 feet in front). Not situations where it's merely unlikely.

Remember a ball is uncatcahable if there are two bodies between you and the ball and you are running straight and the ball is thrown behind you.

We are back to common sense aLa baseball rules. If the receiver could vaporize both defenders, initiate Men in Black air brakes to instantly stop, fall backwards and to his left he may be able to catch the ball an inch off the ground.

And no I don't think it matters when it is in the game or what down. BUT, I especially think that on the last play it is a no call because the offensive team made a bad play. That receiver was completely covered and the pass was no where close. To call PI would bail out a poorly executed play on some obscure interpretation of the PI rule. If the pass was on target they would have called it because now you would have a situation where the offense was denied a right to make a great catch. That short & to the left pass eliminated that scenario.

[smittyallsports]

The ref seen it as pass interference. It is a "judgment" call !!! You should not be allowed to pick a judgment flag up. I have been telling my buddy that all year, "Since when they picking up flags on judgment calls?" It is called right or wrong no conference needed for the other refs to talk him out of it. If another event happened prior to him calling PI like tipped ball at line, then yes they should get it corrected. To call a conference to discuss this particular refs judgment and "take a VOTE" to pick it up or call stands is telling me "QUIT BETTING ON SPORTS" George St. Pierre fight this weekend. NUMEROUS NFL games in the last few years have been obvious FIXES. I was tapped out before last night so I had nothing on it. Knowing the spot and knowing anybody in their right mind is betting Brady over Cam getting points. Also, I don't feel Gronkowski is making that catch but, it is a judgment call in the eyes of the official. He happened to be on top of the play, with full unimpeded view of the whole development of the route directly in front of him and he called PI. What else can you get from this? The whole focus should "NOT" be on was it the right call, it should be why are they picking up "JUDGMENT CALLS"

well said

[Cuse0323]

Damn homies, it's Friday now. No one is changing someones opinion, time to let 'er die.

[Big Bear]

Bear sharp

Bear what do you have cooked up for the Denver game skin?

good question. I am 0-2 in games that involve Tom Brady this year.

I feel the 3rd time is the charm.

I had Falcons ML at home against Pats and lost. ( Didn't realize Falcons were a fraud at the time)
I expected the dirty birds to snap out of their slow start at home. They were so good last year.


And the ofcourse i took Pats ML and lost on this bullshit call against Carolina.

What do both losses have in Common??? Both games were prime time games and
the 2 sides i took were both the public side.


Now this may sound foolish to some but lets be honest the Patriots and Broncos are close to equal.

I would like to fade the public in this game. The public side has won the last 2 sunday nights so were are
due for a SNF public burial.


However The spread is Broncos -2.5 right now

and this game appears to have 50/50 action as of now

67% of ML bets are on the Broncos while only 44% of the ATS bets are on Broncos


with the spread being so close to a pick'em i dont know what to make of that.


My initial lean was to take the Patriots at home.

Tom Brady and Bell Bellichek should be about as pissed off as they can possibly be
after the Refs just totally fukked them in the ass.

If i bet on Patriots i want to see the Tom Brady that gets fired up and head bunts his O-Line After he throws a TD

yall know the Tom Brady i'm talking about . The Tom Brady that throws a TD pass and then stares at the other teams sideline..


If i'm Billy B i'm going into the locker room prior to kick off and i'm calling every single one of those
mother fukkers out and challenging them to stop playing like a bunch of pussies and go out there and hit Denver
in the mouth

[jayc88]

Next flag against this guy, which is picked up.
What kindof a deal does he have with the league?

[d2bets]

Remember a ball is uncatcahable if there are two bodies between you and the ball and you are running straight and the ball is thrown behind you.

We are back to common sense aLa baseball rules. If the receiver could vaporize both defenders, initiate Men in Black air brakes to instantly stop, fall backwards and to his left he may be able to catch the ball an inch off the ground.

And no I don't think it matters when it is in the game or what down. BUT, I especially think that on the last play it is a no call because the offensive team made a bad play. That receiver was completely covered and the pass was no where close. To call PI would bail out a poorly executed play on some obscure interpretation of the PI rule. If the pass was on target they would have called it because now you would have a situation where the offense was denied a right to make a great catch. That short & to the left pass eliminated that scenario.

The rule has nothing to do with whether the play was poorly executed. The only issue is whether the ball was clearly uncatchable but for the interference. That doesn't mean it was likely to be caught. The idea is the pass interference penalty is the essence of the play and will be called unless it was CLEARLY UNCATCHABLE, not whether it was going to be easy or difficult, likely or unlikely. He probably would have met that second defender at the ball. YOu simply cannot say that he couldn't reached it out, tipped it up and then the ball caught by an offensive plsyer. Yes, that's enough. Remember the rule is that it's a PI. Uncatchable is a narrow exception to the assessment of the PI penalty. You seem to be looking at it the other way around, talking about how well the play was executed. Why do we care about that. All we care about is whether it was clearly uncatchable. We know it's clearly uncatchable when the ball is so high that you'd have to jump 15 feet to catch it. But when the player could have been at this spot and may have had even a remote shot to get a hand on it, then it's not clearly uncatchable. We're not judging offensive execution here.

[Bbfromgpt]

The ball was a good 5-6 yards under thrown and touched by a defender prior to the ball getting to the receiver(in this case intercepted). It can't be PI. They could of called illegal contact past 5 yards but that is rarely called these days.

BTW, Brady got away with a grounding call on that 3rd and 10 where he threw down the ball in the left flat when his receiver was on the right flat. That would of made it 4th and 18 and who knows. The calls equal out.

GOY Texas A&M lol

GEAUX Tigers

[R.P. McMurphy]

Sbr John you have no clue! Gronk was simply taken out of the play by the defender and was never given a chance. If the ball was thrown way high or 10 yards of to the side I can maybe see your argument for uncatchable. However interference, holding, face guarding whatever you want to call it there was a penalty. League owes Pats one and they know it and if needed we may see it tonight! Gotta remember my son this is football 101 the receiver always gets the benefit and has the RIGHT to make a play on any catchable ball in today's league.

[Big Bear]

Sbr John you have no clue! Gronk was simply taken out of the play by the defender and was never given a chance. If the ball was thrown way high or 10 yards of to the side I can maybe see your argument for uncatchable. However interference, holding, face guarding whatever you want to call it there was a penalty. League owes Pats one and they know it and if needed we may see it tonight! Gotta remember my son this is football 101 the receiver always gets the benefit and has the RIGHT to make a play on any catchable ball in today's league.

good post man.