2013 Patriots Football

[D.o.s.]

I still don't know if Gronk would've had a realistic shot  at the ball (my actual inclination is to say no) but I will agree with the thought that there is no way that flag would've been picked up if the game was in Foxborough.

I don't think he gets to it, either, based on when he plants his right foot to cut back towards the ball and where the Panthers player goes down for the interception occurs in that gif.

I don't think he was very likely to catch it, but I'm pretty sure he would have been able to make a very credible attempt on the ball (remember, the dude is 6'7, 265 lbs). Which should be enough for the flag to stay down.

To paraphrase a former POTUS, that depends on what the definition of credible is.

It also depends on distance--how long are the letters in the CAROLINA from beginning to end of the TD zone?  To my eye, Gronk plants for a cut right when his knee goes under the crossbar in that gif-what looks like more or less the horizontal division of the O.

If we assume that's his takeoff point, I'm not sure he can make it the two-ish bodylengths (looks that way to me) from that point to where the ball is intercepted by the other defender.

edit: Peyton Manning, eh? He's like geriatric at this point, right?

[StartOrien]

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



Here's what I'm really curious about:

A referee threw his flag on the last play of a potentially game-winning drive on Monday Night Football. And the deliberation to pick that flag up is 10 seconds at most?

[kozlodoev]

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

After the QB throws, illegal contact and defensive holding no longer apply, only PI. Pats' Pulpit got this one out of the way early.

[D.o.s.]

It's like no one reads my posts...

[kozlodoev]

It also depends on distance--how long are the letters in the CAROLINA from beginning to end of the TD zone?  To my eye, Gronk plants for a cut right when his knee goes under the crossbar in that gif-what looks like more or less the horizontal division of the O.

If we assume that's his takeoff point, I'm not sure he can make it the two-ish bodylengths (looks that way to me) from that point to where the ball is intercepted by the other defender.

Gronk only takes 2 steps in the end zone before Kuechly initiates contact. There's no way he's more than 4 yards in. At that point he's turning around to look for the ball, and Kuechly pretty much runs him off the play. The stills mostly show the end of this, because that's where the contact is most egregious.

Thing is, the interception appears perhaps a yard in front of the initial point of contact. How anyone can claim anything different after seeing the replay is beyond me.

And I have a simple definition of credible: he'd been able to put his hands on the ball. Also, the rulebook calls for the ball to be clearly uncatchable. This pass wasn't clearly uncatchable.

[D.o.s.]

It also depends on distance--how long are the letters in the CAROLINA from beginning to end of the TD zone?  To my eye, Gronk plants for a cut right when his knee goes under the crossbar in that gif-what looks like more or less the horizontal division of the O.

If we assume that's his takeoff point, I'm not sure he can make it the two-ish bodylengths (looks that way to me) from that point to where the ball is intercepted by the other defender.

Gronk only takes 2 steps in the end zone before Kuechly initiates contact. There's no way he's more than 4 yards in. At that point he's turning around to look for the ball, and Kuechly pretty much runs him off the play. The stills mostly show the end of this, because that's where the contact is most egregious.

Thing is, the interception appears perhaps a yard in front of the initial point of contact. How anyone can claim anything different after seeing the replay is beyond me.

And I have a simple definition of credible: he'd been able to put his hands on the ball. Also, the rulebook calls for the ball to be clearly uncatchable. This pass wasn't clearly uncatchable.

Now here's where my knowledge of football shows its very clear limitations.

Does the penalty happen at the initial point of contact or when the defender puts both of his hands up? Because to my eye, the defender gets both hands on him (and is clearly interfering) right about the time he plants, which is right before the official throws the flag.

[kozlodoev]

Does the penalty happen at the initial point of contact or when the defender puts both of his hands up? Because to my eye, the defender gets both hands on him (and is clearly interfering) right about the time he plants, which is right before the official throws the flag.

There are five or so different types of interference, and Kuechly broke most of them at different points of the play.

Article 1:
Pass interference is called if a player's ability to catch the ball is impeded while a yard or more beyond the line of scrimmage. Defensive pass interference applies from when the ball is thrown until the ball is touched be a person or the ground (important!).


Article 2:

Prohibited Acts:

(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.

(c) Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.

To me, when Gronk realized he has to cut back to the underthrown ball, and Kuechly put a hand of him, this was immediate interference under 2(a) and/or 2(e).

[PhoSita]

Really?  The Bengals already manhandled the Pats this year, so that doesn't require explanation.  The Chiefs are like a supped-up version of the kind of team that rattles the Pats.  Physical D, good running game, mediocre QB who doesn't turn the ball over, etc.

You mean in week 5, when Brady posted a QB rating of 50, his top 3 passing targets were Amendola, Bolden, and Edelman, and Blount was the feature back?

The Bengals won the game scoring 13 points. Forgive me if I find it hard to consider that "manhandling" -- but I'm quite convinced a game like this is not going to happen again.

The Chiefs have played one of the softest schedules in the league, and have a QB that can't really win you a game throwing the ball. So until they prove they can win against good teams, I remain unimpressed.

Everything you say has the ring of truth to it.

In theory, it makes sense that the Patriots could beat those teams.

But going on recent history, the Pats struggle mightily against teams that check off a certain list of attributes, and both the Bengals and the Chiefs qualify.

Without Atkins & Hall, that Bengals team is nowhere neat the same as it was a month & a half ago.

That is a very fair point.

Also, we probably won't have to play them in the driving rain.

On the other hand, Dalton has been playing a lot better, and Talib has been worse, so I'd be concerned about his ability to cover A.J. Green.

I think it'd be a tough matchup.

[StartOrien]

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

After the QB throws, illegal contact and defensive holding no longer apply, only PI. Pats' Pulpit got this one out of the way early.

I don't think that's true - you're not allowed to make contact with a player after 5 yards unless it's to defend.

[Donoghus]

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

After the QB throws, illegal contact and defensive holding no longer apply, only PI. Pats' Pulpit got this one out of the way early.

I don't think that's true - you're not allowed to make contact with a player after 5 yards unless it's to defend.

It's still an infraction, just the dynamic of it changes once the ball is in the air.

[kozlodoev]

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

After the QB throws, illegal contact and defensive holding no longer apply, only PI. Pats' Pulpit got this one out of the way early.

I don't think that's true - you're not allowed to make contact with a player after 5 yards unless it's to defend.

It's still an infraction, just the dynamic of it changes once the ball is in the air.

I thought it was pretty straightforward:

End of Restrictions.

If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another player, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled) the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

The distinction here is that for defensive holding and illegal contact, it doesn't matter whether they affect your ability to make a play on a pass which is not "clearly uncatchable". For PI (which is the only call once the ball is in the air) this matters.

And this is profoundly immaterial in this case, since the pass to Gronk may have been barely catchable, but it wasn't clearly uncatchable.

[Roy H.]

...[T]he pass to Gronk may have been barely catchable, but it wasn't clearly uncatchable.

That's how I see it.  It's very unlikely that Gronk would have made that catch, but "very unlikely" is different than "impossible".  It was a very bad call, especially in light of the fact that the original official had it right, and was overruled.

[nickagneta]

ESPN lays it all out here and states the explanation of the non call is exactly what Brady called it.(Bad language I can not use here).

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn%3A10004720

[kozlodoev]

ESPN lays it all out here and states the explanation of the non call is exactly what Brady called it.(Bad language I can not use here).

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn%3A10004720

I thought the call was horrible, but the "explanation" of the  VP for officiating was worse.

[sed522002]

Seen this picture on twitter..pretty much sums up how the refs call the games sometimes. Sucks, but that's just how it is.