Officiating is brutal

[bowlingtwig]

I thought Jason said locker room talk was acceptable?

 

Alright gents, I probably crossed a line and I'll step back. Peace.

Funny man. At least no one said Incognito cuz you know all hell would break loose lol

[AZ54]

I'm not buying that the ball was uncatchable. Gronk was not moving so quickly that he could not have stopped and made a move for the ball. What was clear was that the defender had solid position to squash the play, as the ball was well underthrown. However, the ball had at least a chance of being caught. Uncatchable is an absolute by English standards. Not sure what the definition in the NFL rulebook is.

 

 

Ball was ruled uncatchable because it was intercepted ahead of where the pass interference occurred and at the same time the pass interference occurred. At least how the refs saw it real-time.

[jason]

OK, I'll expand on my thoughts since you asked so "nicely"...

 

In this case, the receiver wasn't out of position due to his momentum, he was out of position because he was grabbed with both hands and ridden out of the play. I wouldn't even be surprised if the contact was well before the ball was in the air but I've never seen a replay that shows Brady and the endzone at the same time.

 

Anyone who can't see that this was a blown call is dingy. How the official is graded is irrelevant because frankly they have to take into consideration the human element on the field. And they've got each other's backs as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I don't think there's ever been a discussion on this board about officiating where you didn't take the side of the refs! That play should've been reviewable at a minimum. Refs throwing a flag, having a chat about it, then reversing themselves means that, by default, two people saw the play differently. In those cases, it seems to me, there ought to be a third set of eyes that can take a look at it. and all of those slow-mo elements might actually help determine all of the things we've been talking about in this thread. But these dudes walked off the field basically saying it's a judgment call, f*ck off if you don't like it.

 

If you stop being a pompous ass and complete dick about everything maybe you'll get better results from people like me who don't take your shit. Until then, expect short inflammatory responses under those circumstances.

 

Questions:

1) Are you saying that Gronk's original momentum didn't aid in his movement toward the end line?

2) Are you saying that if Gronk was not being contacted he would have been able to reverse his momentum and beat the defender (the one who intercepted it) to the ball?

 

The door swings both ways. You are the one with all the insults and name-calling. I'm just trying to tell you, no matter how much you dislike it, that, in terms of the NFL rules, interpretations, and philosophies - something I'm far more informed about - you are wrong. If we happen to stray into something you have expertise in, and I definitely don't, you can expect me to say something like, "Ahh...I didn't know that." Look for it in just about every thread about the salary cap (something that I ignore enough to be puzzled by the various intricacies).

[jason]

Hey Jason you say that according to the rules that the ball was not catchable do to momentum and such. I can understand that but if that isn't catchable why is it when I saw a play earlier in the same game when a ball was clearly 10 feet over the intended receivers head that they throw a flag on for DPI. Which would mean they thought the ball was catchable that time. I don't know about you but I've never seen anyone have hops like that.

 

It's a good question. It's about athletic potential, severity, and zone.

 

Whenever possible the officials are told to allow for a player's athletic potential. As we saw last night with Graham breaking the goal post, these dudes are freak athletes with abilities about which we can only dream. So on a ball that's thrown high, the officials are basically told to err on the side of the player's ability. As for it being 10 feet over the player's head, I guess that's when the judgement comes in (it's not like you can break out a ruler while the ball is in the air). I'd say if it was 10 feet over his head, and the player was roughly 6 feet tall, that puts the ball at 16 feet and it's uncatchable. I'm sure from the field, however, the official who ruled on it probably looked at it as 5 feet or so, making it slightly higher than a basketball goal, which Graham obviously showed can be reached/exceeded.

 

On severity, it probably has to do with the contact as well. Let's say the pass is right on target. Less contact will draw the flag for DPI. The further the pass away, I believe the more contact would be required (I've never actually heard a higher up say it like this). So in your scenario with the high pass, if the contact was minimal but significant enough to draw DPI on a regular play, it could be more easily passed than if the defender just tackles the receiver. On those it's more blatant.

 

When I say zone, I'm referring to where the ball is and what the foul is. If the ball is far left and a hold happens far right, it's a no call. Same for DPI. The only things that draw flags regardless of zone are safety and unsportsmanlike issues. So, for instance, if there were two receivers who could potentially get the ball in this scenario, and they were moderately close, the one that's further from the ball would have to get mugged to get the call. The one closer to the throw obviously requires less contact for a foul.

[CrackerDog]

Questions:

1) Are you saying that Gronk's original momentum didn't aid in his movement toward the end line?

 

No. But it had less to do with it than the mugging.

 

2) Are you saying that if Gronk was not being contacted he would have been able to reverse his momentum and beat the defender (the one who intercepted it) to the ball?

 

Yes, potentially. Below this post you talk about "athletic potential" and in this case, as one of the best TE's in the league, I'd say had he not been forcefully pushed (pulled) out of the play, he would've had a chance at it. That would've been my "judgment" when I saw the play in full speed. Not sure how the hell the other ref saw it differently. And I think it should've gone to review because of that.

 

The door swings both ways. You are the one with all the insults and name-calling.

 

I try to do it in a somewhat humorous manner. Like you said, locker room talk among the guys. Whatever, if it offended you I apologize. I don't think it did though. I think you were fine with it and the admins threw out the threat of censorship to shut down the chatter before it got more out of control. Which is cool.

 

As to your being an expert on some things and not others, you seem to think highly of yourself on many things and come across as arrogant. I know I come across as an ass here myself but again, it's hopefully in good fun, we've got our personas here, etc. No blood, no foul.

[Mongo3451]

Ball was ruled uncatchable because it was intercepted ahead of where the pass interference occurred and at the same time the pass interference occurred. At least how the refs saw it real-time.

Yes and that is within the rules. My issue with the refs, is that one guy saw it correctly and was convinced to pick the flag up with no explanation. I really wish John Brinkus would do a "Sports Science" segment on the catch-ability of that pass. My eyes did not play tricks on me...or did they...?