NFL Week 11

[The Sybian]

We're all in agreement that Tom Brady threw a terrible ball, right?

Hell no! Tom Terrific is infallible. The Pats were cheated by [insert lame ass world conspiring against all of Boston excuse] that affected the flight of Pope Tom's perfect pass.

[Jerloma]

That video assumes that Gronk just decelerates in place in half a second and immediately has an 8 foot reach forward. Where's that part of the analysis?

It also states that Keuchly had all 235 pounds of his weight on Gronk. That's just not true. He's rubbing him. In order to have Keuchly's entire weight to overcome, he'd have to be on top of him.

[Gunpowder]

Well, that would involve gravity as well.

I don't know how much of Kuechy's "weight" was on him, but when accounting for that plus his momentum, who knows how much force he was applying. I'm not going to nitpick that part of it.

I just think they had old data with Gronk showing an 8 foot reach with his momentum going toward the ball.

[HaulCitgo]

You now claim to be able to analyze this physics question? Im all for a can do spirit but perhaps youre better off sticking to your completely irrational reasons to unreasonably hate all things Patriots instead of attempting to justify it in scientific theory.

[Jerloma]

You now claim to be able to analyze this physics question? Im all for a can do spirit but perhaps youre better off sticking to your completely irrational reasons to unreasonably hate all things Patriots instead of attempting to justify it in scientific theory.

Oh really...I didn't see you bagging on the other 3 assholes questioning the physics explained in the video as compared to the video of the play itself? Why is that you fucking troll?

[A_B]

You now claim to be able to analyze this physics question? Im all for a can do spirit but perhaps youre better off sticking to your completely irrational reasons to unreasonably hate all things Patriots instead of attempting to justify it in scientific theory.

I think GPJ might be better equipped that the rest of us to analyze the physics, given his physics degree and all.

[rass]

Man, remember when shit like this happened every week in here?

[Gunpowder]

You now claim to be able to analyze this physics question? Im all for a can do spirit but perhaps youre better off sticking to your completely irrational reasons to unreasonably hate all things Patriots instead of attempting to justify it in scientific theory.

Completely irrational reasons to do something unreasonably? Do you think maybe this hate is also unjustifiable and without sense?

[HaulCitgo]

I will accept the undergrad physics degree though I question whether that level of coursework would permit this type of analysis, but you might show your work. Partial credit and all.

[howard]

Man, remember when shit like this happened every week in here?

The good ol' days.

[Jerloma]

Go fuck yourself, Doc.

[Gunpowder]

How are we supposed to remove 'fag' from our lexicon when people like this act like such fags?

I asked for them to show their work. Where does the 8 feet reach from a standing start (at best) come from? Stop hanging out at barstool sports.

[The Sybian]

You now claim to be able to analyze this physics question? Im all for a can do spirit but perhaps youre better off sticking to your completely irrational reasons to unreasonably hate all things Patriots instead of attempting to justify it in scientific theory.

This isn't Patriots hate driving this. I'd be making the same arguments if this happened to any team. If it happened to the Jets, I'd be disappointed, but I'd like to think I'd be rational. Like I continue to believe that the Vinny Testaverde helmet touchdown to win the game against Seattle is still the worst call I've ever seen. Plain and simple, there is no way in hell that ball was catchable.

I don't really hate the Pats, I just hate Boston sports fans. Of all the 4 major sports, really. I was subjected to sports radio and sports fan whining and cosmic conspiracy theories for 3 years. Nothing irrational at all about my hatred of Boston fans. Not to mention the constant "Yankees suck" chants regardless of location or whether baseball was even in season. Especially hilarious and irritating as the Yanks were at the height of their incredible run in the late 90s early oughts, while the Sox hadn't won fuck all in 80 or so years. Seriously, some idiot screamed Yankees suck in a museum and several other idiots joined in. I also loved the general belief in Bostonians that their city has some sort of rivalry with New York City that reaches beyond sports. And don't get me started on the fucking accent. Most grating accent in the world. Even worse than a Belgian speaking Urdu.

[HaulCitgo]

Back to topic, though in lieu of any equations and given the quick resort to homophobic slurs, I might need to check the community college transcript. 3.5 in major studies, please. Might not meet the standard.

That ball wasn't far enough away to make it uncatchable. Just don't think you call that unless its well over the guys head. Gronk does seem to be making a move back to the spot before contact. The defender does beats him there but Gronk wins against DBs and a tipped ball is a likely outcome.

[Scottie]

That ball wasn't far enough away to make it uncatchable. Just don't think you call that unless its well over the guys head. Gronk does seem to be making a move back to the spot before contact. The defender does beats him there but Gronk wins against DBs and a tipped ball is a likely outcome.

Not even "uncatchable" or "catchable" but could Gronk even make a play on it? Get a piece of it? Disrupt the DB enough? Reason I rhetorically ask that is because ohsomany of those desperation passes are tipped. And then anything can pretty much happen.

I believe that the official, having been trained for years, threw that flag by instinct. And that instinct identified a penalty. There certainly was no delay in tossing the flag; it was thrown immediately.

He was also the official closest to the play.

This is akin to, in ice hockey, play occurring at one end of the ice with no call from the official standing right there but then all of a sudden a whistle blows from two hundred feet away. MaxWebster and I saw that right in front of us at a WHL game once. Drives ya' nuts. Like the left-field foul line ump calling a close ground ball out at first.

And to suggest that this debate is not, on one side, fueled by hatred of the Patriots is just plain silly. Really, c'mon. Of course it is. It is just like watching, albeit more articulately, moonbats screeching about "neocons".

[Gunpowder]

Back to topic, though in lieu of any equations and given the quick resort to homophobic slurs, I might need to check the community college transcript. 3.5 in major studies, please. Might not meet the standard.

That ball wasn't far enough away to make it uncatchable. Just don't think you call that unless its well over the guys head. Gronk does seem to be making a move back to the spot before contact. The defender does beats him there but Gronk wins against DBs and a tipped ball is a likely outcome.

Surely with your extensive NFL playing and referee-ing history, you know what is catchable and when that should/should not be called.

[Gunpowder]

And to suggest that this debate is not, on one side, fueled by hatred of the Patriots is just plain silly. Really, c'mon. Of course it is. It is just like watching, albeit more articulately, moonbats screeching about "neocons".

Well then I'll continue to be silly.

Remember the debate about the "Calvin Johnson" rule and all other kinds of non-Patriot calls? There was more talk about the hit on Drew Brees on the internets yesterday than this.

[Gunpowder]

Also, I disagree with the 200 feet away hockey analogy. The back ref threw a flag for the hold. The ref on the sidelines said it would not have affected the play, and really, his vantage point is better, whether he's correct or not (he wasn't).

My only point here is that the sports science clip omitted a very important part of their calculation and just basically said "take our word for it". If that's enough for some people, ok.

[The Sybian]

Just heard Jerry Rice discussing the call on the radio. he said it was the right call because there was no way Gronk could have made a play on the ball. If Jerry Rice couldn't catch it, ain't nobody could have caught it. Scottie, I know you want to ignore the catchable/uncatchable aspect, but that is a part of the game. The closest official flagged, as he should. He is only looking at the contact aspect. Your hockey analogy isn't comparable, because the ref who called off the flag is tasked with ruling on catchability. The team on the field called it that way, the head of officiating said it was correct, the former head of officiating said they called it right...How are we crackpots blinded by team hatred? Who else needs to explain that the officials can pick up the flag, because G-d ain't walking through that door.


ETA: For the record, GPJ's posts saying the same thing weren't up when I started writing this.

[A_B]

I think the uncatchable rule is in part to prevent situations similar to this one where a WR could slow up for a clearly underthrown ball (the other part is the throwaway out of bounds/ ball that sails over the receiver albeit unintentionally) and cause contact and not penalize the defense for the QB making a bad throw.

[The Sybian]

I saw also add that Jerry Rice said that if Brady threw the ball where he should have, there is no question that PI would have been called, and it would have been the right call. Again, catchable is the key.

[Scottie]

Just heard Jerry Rice discussing the call on the radio. he said it was the right call because there was no way Gronk could have made a play on the ball. If Jerry Rice couldn't catch it, ain't nobody could have caught it. Scottie, I know you want to ignore the catchable/uncatchable aspect, but that is a part of the game. <snip>

I'm not ignoring catchable/uncatchable at all. Quite the opposite. You will note, after all, that the ball was in fact caught.

And the hockey analogy is applicable because, and perhaps I didn't make this clear enough, from a fan's perspective it is overwhelmingly visual. Had this been a minor tugging on the sleeve sort of holding, there'd be little to dispute. What caused the fuss isn't whether the ball could be caught but the over-turned bear-hug wrestling hold on a receiver that went unpenalized and unexplained by officials.

I can't think of another sport, off hand, where a rules violation is in that fashion rationalized away by the subjunctive. Closest I can muster is diving in soccer; a clear rules violation that is ignored, even encouraged.

Catchable/uncatchable is a judgement call. Because of that you'll inevitably get debates. It isn't like "if you step on the white line, you're out of bounds". I understand why it was called the way it was; I thought it was a bad call because, even if it was unlikely Gronk could make a play on the ball, he was prevented from even attempting to make a play on it.

And, yes, Jerry Rice could "catch a BB in the dark". Crossed paths with him once at Gaylords in San Francisco. No, that's not a men's bath house, it is an East Indian restaurant; a very good one. He was at the neighboring table with a kvetching New Englander who seemed to be his agent. Leaving, he was at the coat rack just ahead of me. Shocked to see he was pretty much my size (except, well, in amazing NFL shape); he turned, huge smile, nodded hello. Nodded back. I miss watching him play. And it increasingly kills me that tremendous athletes of our lifetimes have been retired for a decade.

[Jerloma]

Catchable/uncatchable is a judgement call. Because of that you'll inevitably get debates. It isn't like "if you step on the white line, you're out of bounds". I understand why it was called the way it was; I thought it was a bad call because, even if it was unlikely Gronk could make a play on the ball, he was prevented from even attempting to make a play on it.

See, I think that's a completely fair assessment. Most of the local Pats fans around here don't think it was a bad call...they think it was a conspiracy.

[Gunpowder]

I'm not ignoring catchable/uncatchable at all. Quite the opposite. You will note, after all, that the ball was in fact caught.

It was caught by a defensive player. Catchable/uncatchable refers to the wide receiver.

[Scottie]

Catchable/uncatchable refers to the wide receiver.

Ya' don't say.

[The Sybian]

Just heard Jerry Rice discussing the call on the radio. he said it was the right call because there was no way Gronk could have made a play on the ball. If Jerry Rice couldn't catch it, ain't nobody could have caught it. Scottie, I know you want to ignore the catchable/uncatchable aspect, but that is a part of the game. <snip>

I'm not ignoring catchable/uncatchable at all. Quite the opposite. You will note, after all, that the ball was in fact caught.

And the hockey analogy is applicable because, and perhaps I didn't make this clear enough, from a fan's perspective it is overwhelmingly visual. Had this been a minor tugging on the sleeve sort of holding, there'd be little to dispute. What caused the fuss isn't whether the ball could be caught but the over-turned bear-hug wrestling hold on a receiver that went unpenalized and unexplained by officials.

I can't think of another sport, off hand, where a rules violation is in that fashion rationalized away by the subjunctive. Closest I can muster is diving in soccer; a clear rules violation that is ignored, even encouraged.

Catchable/uncatchable is a judgement call. Because of that you'll inevitably get debates. It isn't like "if you step on the white line, you're out of bounds". I understand why it was called the way it was; I thought it was a bad call because, even if it was unlikely Gronk could make a play on the ball, he was prevented from even attempting to make a play on it.

And, yes, Jerry Rice could "catch a BB in the dark". Crossed paths with him once at Gaylords in San Francisco. No, that's not a men's bath house, it is an East Indian restaurant; a very good one. He was at the neighboring table with a kvetching New Englander who seemed to be his agent. Leaving, he was at the coat rack just ahead of me. Shocked to see he was pretty much my size (except, well, in amazing NFL shape); he turned, huge smile, nodded hello. Nodded back. I miss watching him play. And it increasingly kills me that tremendous athletes of our lifetimes have been retired for a decade.

Gotcha. I see your point, and I do think the ref made a huge mistake running off with no explanation given. It was clear the officials just wanted to get the hell out of there. I wonder if they would have explained the non-call if the home team was on offense there. Seems more likely, but then again, they'd be that much more anxious to get off the field.

[Scottie]

We're all in agreement that Tom Brady threw a terrible ball, right?

While we're at it, let me pose this question, not rhetorically but rather straight up . . . do you guys think that, in this situation (a desperation play), a quarterback is trying to hit a receiver on the numbers or is throwing to a zone/area?

[brian]

We're all in agreement that Tom Brady threw a terrible ball, right?

While we're at it, let me pose this question, not rhetorically but rather straight up . . . do you guys think that, in that situation (a desperation play), a quarterback is trying to hit a receiver on the numbers or is throwing to a zone/area?

The latter for certain, though the play in question was close enough to the end zone to run a "real" play as opposed to a more typical desperation play. (Put another way - given a better play call, some different luck, etc. it's entirely possible the Pats could have had a wide open receiver, which is almost impossible on a play from say, midfield).

[Gunpowder]

We're all in agreement that Tom Brady threw a terrible ball, right?

While we're at it, let me pose this question, not rhetorically but rather straight up . . . do you guys think that, in this situation (a desperation play), a quarterback is trying to hit a receiver on the numbers or is throwing to a zone/area?

I don't know...there are two ways to throw that same route there, and short would be one of them. And I think the Carolina DB was expecting that (he jumped it almost immediately), so maybe he was trying to throw it short so Gronk could come back to it.

[Gunpowder]

We're all in agreement that Tom Brady threw a terrible ball, right?

While we're at it, let me pose this question, not rhetorically but rather straight up . . . do you guys think that, in that situation (a desperation play), a quarterback is trying to hit a receiver on the numbers or is throwing to a zone/area?

The latter for certain, though the play in question was close enough to the end zone to run a "real" play as opposed to a more typical desperation play. (Put another way - given a better play call, some different luck, etc. it's entirely possible the Pats could have had a wide open receiver, which is almost impossible on a play from say, midfield).

Good point - I wouldn't call it a desperation play, where the QB just throws it up blindly. I do think maybe he was trying to throw short so Gronk could make a play on it and I also think he didn't see that underneath safety.

[Scottie]

I wouldn't call it a desperation play . . .

You're right. I should have phrased that differently; framing it as the final play of a game, more of a do-or-die from a distance, if you will.

[Johnnie]

To add to this, whether it's good or bad, the Sports Science video was removed from ESPN.

Here's a screencap of me trying to watch it from John Brenkus's Twitter:



And this is the enclosed link that no longer works.

Also, Belichick showed the Pats the final seconds of the "Matt Stafford injuring his non throwing shoulder and beating the Browns in the final seconds" game that was even more awesome because he was mic'd up.

Mike Reiss notes:

Browns defensive back Hank Poteat had his back to the play and was making contact with receiver Bryant Johnson as he was pushing him toward the back of the end zone, about 5 yards away from where the ball was ultimately intercepted. No matter that the ball could have easily been deemed uncatchable. There still was restriction by Poteat.

So, echo Scottie from his previous post in the thread:

Then again, the NFL can't even determine with any consistency what constitutes a catch; ludicrous inconsistency on a holding penalty in the endzone shouldn't come as much surprise.

Gronk had a better goddamn chance of making a play on the ball then did Bryant Johnson. Just watch:

[brian]

Thanks, I will watch that again.

[Johnnie]

Go with this link: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I did. It was one of the coolest things I had ever seen when it comes to sports and cinematic production.

[Gunpowder]

It's true that Bryant Johnson didn't have much of a chance there, but he had like a 10x better chance than Gronk did of actually getting to the area where the ball landed.

[Gunpowder]

That is a weak call to lose a game on, that's for sure.

[Jerloma]

Johnson wasn't moving in the opposite direction of where the ball was landing. He had a better chance than Gronk did and I think that flag should have been picked up too.

[TheHumanComa]

The Washington Redskins are having problems with their young QB? send him to the Vikes! They love drama queens and also have a thing for going through QBs as fast as possible.

[degenerasian]

Falcons are 2-8 and they're kicking a FG from there? Down 4?

[Gunpowder]

Falcons are 2-8 and they're kicking a FG from there? Down 4?

No idea. No f-in' idea.

During the Bills-Steelers game a few weeks back, the Bills had a 4th and 4 or so from the Steelers 40, down 17-3 in the 4th quarter, and punted. It's like some of these coaches don't want to win if it entails taking the slightest bit of chance.