Moderator: Moderators
Also, nfl already backtracked on "uncatchable". Uncatchable has nothing to do with it.Tom Pelissero @TomPelissero 7h
Guess Dean Blandino couldn't wait for primetime. Went on NFLN and said it was a "tight judgment call" last night. Wouldn't say it was right.
@SeifertESPN: #NFL explanation different from "uncatchable" given Monday night to pool reporter.
Sure did. Also watched the play a few more times and heard a couple explanations. I came to my own conclusion based on what I previously stated. At the end of the day, nothing changes. It is what it is, and it's time to move on.Crax wrote:Did you bother to read either of the links I posted? We'll have to disagree on that being "the right call".
So you are sticking to uncatchable even though I already pointed out that it has nothing to do with this and is never mentioned in the official nfl statement?MelanieMFunk wrote: Sure did. Also watched the play a few more times and heard a couple explanations. I came to my own conclusion based on what I previously stated.
The nfl is already admitting there was contact. Either the contact occurred before the ball arrived, which is a penalty or the contact occurred simultaneously to the other defender intercepting(gaining possesion of) the ball so it doesn't matter. The refs chose option two.They determined that, in their judgment, that the contact occurred simultaneous with the ball being intercepted
Simple question for you: Did the contact occur before or simultaneously to the interception?"The issue isn't the contact," Blandino said Tuesday. "The issue is the restriction. Does it occur when prior to the ball being touched?
That's pretty much where I'm at with at as well. Technically, by the "letter of the law" in the NFL, I think that was pass interference but as you said, that pass was going to be completed for a TD. It was an INT all the way. Gronkowski was too deep to work back to it.MelanieMFunk wrote:Even if he wasn't interfered with, he wasn't going to catch that ball. That's all I need to know. He was out of position (mostly by his choice), it was a bad throw, and two defenders were closer to the ball than he was. That's why I'm not losing sleep over this.
Point: With or WITHOUT interference, it wasn't going to be a completed pass for a touchdown. Game over.
I'm glad they weren't given another freebie shot, for reasons previously mentioned. I don't think it would have been justified after what was seen on the field. Yeah, on the field, in the moment--not after ten replays later that night and the next day. That's too convenient. That's where I'm at with this.
I've been saying the same thing for years! Warning: it's usually an unpopular point of view.It never comes down to just one play--or call.
The nfl has already stated that this was about the timing of the contact- "The issue is the restriction. Does it occur when prior to the ball being touched?". The nfl never once used the words catchable,uncatchable or the made up word from the referees that night "catchability".MelanieMFunk wrote:Interference, contact, restriction, etc. aside, was he in position to make the catch without getting interference called on himself? You can't go through people. Defenders have the right to play the ball, as well. The defender who intercepted it had perfect position. No way Gronk gets near it.
I never said robbed, I said the call was wrong. I don't care if the pats finish 1-15.MelanieMFunk wrote: It never comes down to just one play--or call. That's all. The Pats weren't robbed. It's okay to move on. I'm already there.
Just to beat this horse one more timeMothman wrote: That's pretty much where I'm at with at as well. Technically, by the "letter of the law" in the NFL, I think that was pass interference
, I'm talking about illegal contact, not PI. Would have resulted in one un-timed down from the 13 in this case I believe.Once the ball was thrown, I think illegal contact was off the table.Crax wrote:Just to beat this horse one more time
I think it was either pass interference or nothing.ILLEGAL CONTACT WITHIN FIVE YARDS OF LINE
Within the five-yard zone, a defender may not make original contact in the back of a receiver, nor may he use his hands or arms to hang onto or encircle a receiver. The defender cannot extend an arm(s) to cut off or hook a receiver causing contact that impedes and restricts the receiver as the play develops, nor may he maintain contact after the receiver has moved beyond a point that is even with the defender.
ILLEGAL CONTACT BEYOND FIVE-YARD ZONE
Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. If the receiver attempts to evade the defender, the defender cannot chuck him, or extend an arm(s) to cut off or hook him, causing contact that redirects, restricts, or impedes the receiver in any way.
INCIDENTAL CONTACT BEYOND FIVE-YARD ZONE
Beyond the five-yard zone, incidental contact may exist between receiver and defender as long as it does not materially affect or significantly impede the receiver, creating a distinct advantage.
Exception 2: See Rule 8, Section 4, Article 5 for legal and illegal cut blocks.
Note 1: Once the quarterback or receiver of the snap hands off, is tackled, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a fumble or a muff that touches the ground, or if the quarterback leaves the pocket area (see 3-24), the restrictions on the defensive team relative to offensive receivers (illegal contact, illegal cut block) will end.
Note 2: Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation, defensive action that would normally constitute illegal contact (chuck beyond five yards) will no longer be considered a foul.
Yep, and these were actually some of my very first thoughts, and the rest of my points stemmed from there.Mothman wrote:
Once the ball was thrown, I think illegal contact was off the table.
--
I think it was either pass interference or nothing.
I'm going to guess that sometimes you have that exact same feeling. 
Yeah. They are poop without Reggie Wayne.Reignman wrote:WTF is wrong with the Colts? They beat Manning and then they get blown out by bad teams every other week. I guess Bruce Arians just knows the Colts better than Chuck strong.
...okay, it's officially distracting again. Dang it. Broncos better not blow this.MelanieMFunk wrote:The Pats are fumbling the game away. BB has got to be ON FIRE inside. LOL.
This game is LAME. Wow. I love it when the Pats suck, but dang.
I was wondering how I was going to do homework while this game was on...the Broncos made it happen for me. It's barely worth watching! I'll turn it down and go to town on this paper.
That is some serious sideline karma coming back to haunt the Steelers.
