The Swamp

That is pure and utter bullshit. Didn't you break your tv over a call?

No, I broke my TV because Wes Welker ended up being Julian Edelman. They all look the same to me.

Your grievance is not completely unjustified but that's a fucking INT regardless of what happened with Gronk. It was just an incredibly shitty pass. It should have been thrown over his head; not 5 feet in front of him.

Plus, I don't think you can even do that. Like, if you throw a flag for PI and then they meet up and determine that the pass wasn't catchable, all you can do is pick up the flag. You can't be like, "Oh, let's call holding then." Again though, this should have been explained.

Jerloma wrote:Plus, I don't think you can even do that. Like, if you throw a flag for PI and then they meet up and determine that the pass wasn't catchable, all you can do is pick up the flag. You can't be like, "Oh, let's call holding then." Again though, this should have been explained.

This is true, once the ball leaves the QBs hand it can no longer be holding so it's either PI or not.

degenerasian wrote:This is true, once the ball leaves the QBs hand it can no longer be holding so it's either PI or not.

Uh, no. If that was the case there would be muggings on every pass; on every play you'd see DBs with an eye on the QB so they can wrap up receivers the instant a ball is thrown. You may be getting that confused with turnovers.

Fact is, the Patriot receiver was denied a chance to attempt catching a ball because he was completely wrapped up. Whether or not the ball was "catchable" is irrelevant; it is because of the holding that the receiver was never in a position to justly rule if the ball could be caught.

"Uncatchable" is almost always called when a ball is thrown out of bounds, a mile over everyone's heads; this pass was in the middle of endzone, numbers height and in the vicinity of the receiver. Saying a receiver would not have been able to catch a ball "anyway", a ball that would have crossed his path, that was a yard or two away, is a cop out.

Calling that uncatchable is as absurd as calling a dropped hail mary "intentional grounding".

Carolina got away with one there. A big one.

scottie, once the ball leaves the QBs hand it's no longer holding, it's pass interference (why DBs can't mug receivers once the ball is thrown) which brings uncatchable into play. Remember holding is only 5 yards and PI is a spot foul so often when DBs are totally beat they will grab and take the 5 yard penalty before the QB releases the ball.

I'm not saying yesterday's call was correct, it just can't be illegal contact or holding.

Rush2112 wrote:

Gunpowder wrote:You'd have to make faceguarding an actual penalty before you call it.

It's legal when no contact is made, sort of looks like contact there my friend.

You already threw a flag for the contact (the push).

The contact is not legal (on a catchable ball at least), but it doesn't matter which way you're facing. I'm just tired of reading about faceguarding on my Facebook feed. It's a word that shouldn't be in the football lexicon.

I was referring to the NFL Rule Book. Specifically this:

Article 6 Defensive Holding. It is defensive holding if a player grasps an eligible offensive player (or his
jersey) with his hands, or extends an arm or arms to cut off or encircle him. See 12-1-6.

"See 12-1-6", right. So following the NFL rule book, let's look at the Book Of Hebrews, commonly called The Epistle To The Hebrews, King James version, New Testament: 12-1-6.

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily entangle us.

Entangle. Witnesses of a pass. See? Sure sounds like "holding" to me.

Scottie wrote:

degenerasian wrote:
Uh, no. If that was the case there would be muggings on every pass; on every play you'd see DBs with an eye on the QB so they can wrap up receivers the instant a ball is thrown. You may be getting that confused with turnovers.

They'd get a flagged for interference.

I'm not sure if the difference between holding/PI is a judgment call or not. I think degen may wrong here but I understand his point - he's saying that holding after the ball is thrown is interference. But I think I've seen it called with the ball in the air.

So basically what you're saying is that every time there's an underthrown pass, a complete mugging is allowed to happen.

Now we have to determine exactly what constitutes "underthrown." So we have to calculate azimuth during a super slow-mo instant replay and a particular receiver's ability to actually be in that football's vicinity. At least that'll make the Sports Science Guy very happy. And anyone listening to a game with Dan Dierdorf, kinda. Megatron would have an amazing VORA.

Seems legit.

Or we can just call it fucking bullshit like anyone with half a brain would do since bear hugs in the end zone on a potential receiver is an infraction -- on a ball catchable or not.

Brady's right though. Fucking brutal.



But here's what seems to be floating around: people saying Brady should be getting the Dez Bryant treatment. I think giving Dez Bryant the Dez Bryant treatment is bullshit.

Well, muggings on uncatchable balls wouldn't be a new thing. It's happened many times before.

I would just hate to give them the ball at the one there for a terrible pass where, well, Gronk would have had to mug the defender to catch it.

Youtube is blocked at work, so I can only assume one of them is the blatant hold in the Saints/Pats game that was not called on the Pats game-winning TD?

Gunpowder wrote:Well, muggings on uncatchable balls wouldn't be a new thing. It's happened many times before.

I would just hate to give them the ball at the one there for a terrible pass where, well, Gronk would have had to mug the defender to catch it.

And then somehow find a way to get in front of the guy that picked it off. That ball may as well have been thrown in the 5th row. Gronk at least would have had a shot at that.

Gunpowder wrote:I would just hate to give them the ball at the one there for a terrible pass where, well, Gronk would have had to mug the defender to catch it.

Hate it or not, it would have been the correct call. Just like it is a correct call, like it or not, every time you see a DB barely brushing a receiver and the ball ends up at the one.

A "no call" on a restraining hold so blatant is absurd. 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. It was sadly evocative of the replacement refs at the end of the Seahawks/Packers game.

Hey, there was a heap of dislike about a World Series game ending on an interference call. But that was the right call.

Rush2112 wrote:

Jerloma wrote:Even if Kuechly wasn't there, how do you propose that Gronkowski gets in front of Lester?

He has inside position on him at the L in the endzone Kuechly's "non-penalty" doesn't allow him to keep that position and pushes him away from the ball.

Even if this isn't called PI, it's at least a holding call. The play that McCourty got called for holding was basically the same thing aside from the INT. Ball wasn't catchable because of the defender impeding the receiver from getting to the ball (though Olson sold the hold, and might have been guilty of holding himself.)

I read somewhere it was basically like Kuechly was boxing him out on a basketball court. That's legal. The bear hug is what makes it illegal, in basketball and in football.

I thought holding could only be called before the ball is in the air.


ETA: I didn't see the last page before posting. Degen's linked article fits my understanding of the rules. And that was a Pat's site saying the call was right. Clearly not written by a true Boston fan.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-trian ... ew-england" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Degen, looks like you are describing the circumstances for a penalty - but it's illegal contact, not defensive holding. Scottie's link is correct in that defensive holding can be called with the ball in the air.

Rush2112 wrote:Ah, Jerloma wonder how'd you react if this was Heath Miller and not a Patriot.

I imagine you'd be able to find a thread of Jerloma blowing up and losing his mind over the garbage tripping call that contributed an awful lot to a loss in the Steelers-Bengals game back in week 2, then.

We should rename this thread "William Faulkner/Macbeth Tribute Thread"

Gunpowder wrote:

Rush2112 wrote:Ah, Jerloma wonder how'd you react if this was Heath Miller and not a Patriot.

I imagine you'd be able to find a thread of Jerloma blowing up and losing his mind over the garbage tripping call that contributed an awful lot to a loss in the Steelers-Bengals game back in week 2, then.

I have to be louder because I don't have a media that loses it's fucking mind every time something controversial happens to the Steelers, unless of course it benefits the Steelers. As a matter of fact, I don't even get a mention from the announcers or one instant fucking replay. That Bengals game was probably the biggest officiating cluster-fuck of the season and I made one post responding to your post about it.

Jerloma wrote:

Gunpowder wrote:That Bengals game was probably the biggest officiating cluster-fuck of the season and I made one post responding to your post about it.

That was my point.

AB_skin_test wrote:We should rename this thread "William Faulkner/Macbeth Tribute Thread"

I thought the same thing when I noticed it was written from the perspective of a mentally handicapped man observing a game of golf!

Gunpowder wrote:http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-trian ... ew-england

Degen, looks like you are describing the circumstances for a penalty - but it's illegal contact, not defensive holding. Scottie's link is correct in that defensive holding can be called with the ball in the air.

I stand corrected then. I always thought illegal contact and holding were under exact same circumstances..just one was obstructing and one was holding.

sort if like illegal shift/motion/formation

Bill Barnwell is awesome. But it's obvious in every game ever that "the side that makes the best plays throughout the course of events to it's end is the correct winner regardless of the final play" can be made about anything. Chess, Poker, Magic: The Gathering, Monopoly, etc.

But in a close game where there's one last chance to win for the team that's behind and the refs job it, people are going to scream no matter what happened halfway through the 4th quarter.

Johnnie wrote:Bill Barnwell is awesome. But it's obvious in every game ever that "the side that makes the best plays throughout the course of events to it's end is the correct winner regardless of the final play" can be made about anything. Chess, Poker, Magic: The Gathering, Monopoly, etc.

But in a close game where there's one last chance to win for the team that's behind and the refs job it, people are going to scream no matter what happened halfway through the 4th quarter.

Oh, I am with you on that. I hate the "If Johny Hendricks wanted the belt he should have took it!" type stuff.

Just noting that Barnwell addressed degen's earlier post.

Ah, gotcha.

NFL VP of officiating says degen is right and that when the ball is in the air, you have two options...PI or no PI.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... r-nothing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yo, haters:



What I say?

Johnnie wrote:At least that'll make the Sports Science Guy very happy.

One last thing:

From a strictly philosophical standpoint, nothing is impossible anyway so you shouldn't even have a ruling of uncatchable as it's completely unfalsifiable. Science has never deemed anything to be an absoloute certainty but as sure as I am that the Earth pulls objects towards it's surface at a rate of 9.81 m/s squared, as sure as I am that Gronkowski isn't making the greatest sports play in history.

But not giving him the opportunity to try is the point of all this.

Science just gave a middle finger to the dumb logic applied in the closing seconds of the game.

brian wrote:Horrible call in this Niners-Saints game on that personal foul. This is honestly why football will be dead in 15-20 years. This is pussy ass shit at this point. Might as well play with flags.

not just a penalty, the guy has been fined!

But Johnnie, you can try to catch a ball that's 10 feet over your head and if your jersey's being grabbed, you'll be deprived of that attempt. The point is that "uncatchable" is a subjective thing and therefore it has to be applied subjectively. There has to be some point where you can reasonably deem something uncatchable because you could never objectively call anything uncatchable. So for the ref, this was beyond that point. Unless Isaac Newton is the ref, there's no way he could have been able to calculate the physics involved after watching it once in full speed.

The one person on this board I would figure to agree with science doesn't.

Irony.

Johnnie wrote:The one person on this board I would figure to agree with science doesn't.

Irony.

Science said it would have been possible to make that catch. I said nothing is impossible. Seems like me and Science agree just fine.

Johnnie wrote:But not giving him the opportunity to try is the point of all this.

Science just gave a middle finger to the dumb logic applied in the closing seconds of the game.

My biggest peeve is that the flag was thrown. There was something egregious enough that caused an official to throw a flag on a type of play that 99.9999999% of the time anything goes and it's best man for the ball. The official threw a flag for something that happened 5 feet in front of him. Either throw a flag or not, don't throw one and then pick it up (especially if you hightail it off the field and don't really offer any explanation.)

Rush2112 wrote:

Johnnie wrote:But not giving him the opportunity to try is the point of all this.

Science just gave a middle finger to the dumb logic applied in the closing seconds of the game.

My biggest peeve is that the flag was thrown. There was something egregious enough that caused an official to throw a flag on a type of play that 99.9999999% of the time anything goes and it's best man for the ball. The official threw a flag for something that happened 5 feet in front of him. Either throw a flag or not, don't throw one and then pick it up (especially if you hightail it off the field and don't really offer any explanation.)

This completely misses the point. Nobody is arguing that a flag wasn't warranted or that the defender didn't mug Gronk. The official who threw the flag was correct to throw it, but another official has the ability to pick up the flag if the ball is uncatchable. The official who picked up the flag didn't say that a mugging didn't occur, but said that the mugging was irrelevant because the ball wouldn't have gotten to Gronk anyways. Again, this happens all the time. The official on the sideline watching for PI throws the flag, but the head official or someone else is watching to see if the ball is catchable. Usually the ball is thrown way over the receivers head when the flag is picked and the ruling is that the ball was uncatchable. If you want to argue that Gronk would have been able to make the play but for the mugging, fine, blame the official who picked up the flag. But your argument isn't valid, because the officials did it right. Another example is PI being flagged and overturned because the ball was tipped. The flag-throwing official isn't wrong to throw the flag, he is watching for PI, and he saw the defender hit the receiver before the ball got there. Then an official who saw the tip picks up the flag. Same thing here. Do you have a problem with picking up the flag in the tipped ball scenario?

The Sybian wrote:Do you have a problem with picking up the flag in the tipped ball scenario?

I don't, but that is an entirely different scenario. There is a huge difference on a middle of the the game PI and a PI called in a play that basically amounts to do anything to stop a completed pass that last second end zone plays amount to.

If the pass was one of the those that are typical in a pick-up-the-PI-flag scenario: ten feet over his head, out of bounds, tipped, then pick it up. BUT Gronk was being bear-hugged and because of this not allowed to break to the ball. Just because a throw is slightly under thrown doesn't make it uncatchable.They can say it's uncatchable in their explanation, but as shown in the video Johnnie posted, and from watching Gronk for the past few seasons, you can't say without a doubt that the pass was uncatchable.

Rush2112 wrote:

The Sybian wrote:Do you have a problem with picking up the flag in the tipped ball scenario?

I don't, but that is an entirely different scenario. There is a huge difference on a middle of the the game PI and a PI called in a play that basically amounts to do anything to stop a completed pass that last second end zone plays amount to.

If the pass was one of the those that are typical in a pick-up-the-PI-flag scenario: ten feet over his head, out of bounds, tipped, then pick it up. BUT Gronk was being bear-hugged and because of this not allowed to break to the ball. Just because a throw is slightly under thrown doesn't make it uncatchable.They can say it's uncatchable in their explanation, but as shown in the video Johnnie posted, and from watching Gronk for the past few seasons, you can't say without a doubt that the pass was uncatchable.

With the benefit or replay from numerous angles and a team of physics guys calculating the velocity of the Gronk... maybe. Live action on the field, when a defender 4 yards in front of the receiver picks it off, uncatchable seems reasonable. If the DB isn't there and the ball goes through, even if it isn't within touching range of Gronk, yeah, PI is warranted. Live action, I think it's a perfectly cromulent call. Despite the Science of Sports segment, there is no way Gronk does any more than knock the ball away from the dude who intercepted it. I still don' think he could have stopped his momentum, turned around and ran 3 yards back in the time it took the ball to travel 6 yards. No freaking way.

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?

Gunpowder wrote: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?

Good point. They fail to account for the time it takes to react in order to decide to stop, turn around, run the opposite direction and reach your arms out.

Yeah, that was my issue. They only consider Gronk's momentum with Keuchly's help, not his own momentum, which is substantial in and of itself, and a more important part of the "uncatchable".

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