No PI at end of NE / Car game??

[Cartire]

A lot of misinformation in this thread.

Firstly, it can not be defensive holding. Holding can only occur while the qb still has the ball. Contact didn't happen until after the ball was thrown.

So the only option for the contact was PI. However, because the ball was intercepted five yards up, this made the ball uncatchable, therefor negating PI.

The only argument that can be made was that Gronk could have made it back to the point of the interception if he wasn't PI'd. That's a judgement call at that point. I don't think he could have, so the no-call was good.

The ref could have avoided all this controversy talk if he just explained that at the end instead of running off.

Defensive holding doesn't have any rule about the ball being in the QB's hands. That's "illegal contact."

If the ball is in the air, it can be defensive holding or defensive pass interference. The PI call requires the ball to be catchable. So your view of whether it was defensive holding or defensive PI would depend on whether you thought the ball was catchable.

Incorrect muchacho.

Rule 8.4.7
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.

Can't be illegal contact or holding once the ball is in the air. Don't let the 100 ESPN talking heads mislead you. Besides two of them all day long, all of them have argued it could have been called holding when it clearly as day could not.

 

[mikeak]

Cartire - what amazes me is that the commentators refernces that all day long every game.

"That is holding as it was prior to the pass being thrown - 5 yards first down"

"That was a pass interference as the ball was in the air - ball will be placed at the spot of the foul"

After hearing that for years somehow the same talking [insert insult] now suddenly want a holding call when the ball was in the air.

As soon as the flag was waived off I said that it was probably because it was contact and Brady may have been deemed to have left the pocket but then as I saw it I was like nope ball was air-borne right away

Now separately referencing your rule. On a flea-flicker would you not argue that while the ball goes to the RB and prior to being back with the QB you should be allowed to push down the wide receivers? ............

 

[maporsche]

It looks to me like Gronk slowed down to come back for the WELL UNDERTHROWN football. At that point, because Kuechly wasn't looking at the ball and didn't know it was thrown he wasn't able to adjust and ran right into Gronk. I don't think he held him as much as he just ran into him. Look at his left arm, it's pretty much dangling and not wrapping around him.

I'm not sure what the rule is when there is contact like that. If a CB is covering a receiver and the receiver suddenly stops to comeback for the ball and the CB runs into him....sounds like incidental contact to me.

 

[mikeak]

^ The rule is that if he could have made it back to the ball then it would have been a PI. The refs deemed that he couldn't so no PI

 

[Cartire]

Cartire - what amazes me is that the commentators refernces that all day long every game.

"That is holding as it was prior to the pass being thrown - 5 yards first down"

"That was a pass interference as the ball was in the air - ball will be placed at the spot of the foul"

After hearing that for years somehow the same talking [insert insult] now suddenly want a holding call when the ball was in the air.

As soon as the flag was waived off I said that it was probably because it was contact and Brady may have been deemed to have left the pocket but then as I saw it I was like nope ball was air-borne right away

Now separately referencing your rule. On a flea-flicker would you not argue that while the ball goes to the RB and prior to being back with the QB you should be allowed to push down the wide receivers? ............

My thoughts on ESPN commentators is they know controversy sells. Most of them are purposely blowing it out of proportion to keep the ratings up.

On the flea-flicker, yes, the instant they hand off, you can mug away. However, if db's are doing their job, during the hand off, they should be still focused on the WR's hips keeping them with the WR. Or they bit on the fake and are about to get torched anyway. Tough play for them to react to the flicker and be able to still mug the WR.

 

[volsunghawk]

A lot of misinformation in this thread.

Firstly, it can not be defensive holding. Holding can only occur while the qb still has the ball. Contact didn't happen until after the ball was thrown.

So the only option for the contact was PI. However, because the ball was intercepted five yards up, this made the ball uncatchable, therefor negating PI.

The only argument that can be made was that Gronk could have made it back to the point of the interception if he wasn't PI'd. That's a judgement call at that point. I don't think he could have, so the no-call was good.

The ref could have avoided all this controversy talk if he just explained that at the end instead of running off.

Defensive holding doesn't have any rule about the ball being in the QB's hands. That's "illegal contact."

If the ball is in the air, it can be defensive holding or defensive pass interference. The PI call requires the ball to be catchable. So your view of whether it was defensive holding or defensive PI would depend on whether you thought the ball was catchable.

Incorrect muchacho.

Rule 8.4.7
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.

Can't be illegal contact or holding once the ball is in the air. Don't let the 100 ESPN talking heads mislead you. Besides two of them all day long, all of them have argued it could have been called holding when it clearly as day could not.

Huh, I was misled by Bill Barnwell, then.

For the record, I don't do the sports TV or radio, but I guess Grantland is a subsidiary of ESPN, so...

 

[ivotuk]

Looked like Tom Brady flinched on that throw, causing it to be underthrown. That's all on him.

And like Willie McGinest said "We were taught to never let it come down to a single call by a referee."

 

[therealjohncarlson]

Looked like Tom Brady flinched on that throw, causing it to be underthrown. That's all on him.

And like Willie McGinest said "We were taught to never let it come down to a single call by a referee."

Kind of counterintuitive, no? Not making a call is on the same side of a coin as making a call on the same play. The refs don't get to just not do their jobs on the last play of the game. It's unfair to the team the penalty is committed on to play a certain way all game and get bamboozled on the last play of the game.

 

[Largent80]

They are calling PI on well OVERTHROWN balls this year way too much. To my eye, he was holding dude whether it is PI or not, which it should not be because that ball was so under thrown.

 

[Polaris]

Looked like Tom Brady flinched on that throw, causing it to be underthrown. That's all on him.

And like Willie McGinest said "We were taught to never let it come down to a single call by a referee."

Kind of counterintuitive, no? Not making a call is on the same side of a coin as making a call on the same play. The refs don't get to just not do their jobs on the last play of the game. It's unfair to the team the penalty is committed on to play a certain way all game and get bamboozled on the last play of the game.

Not really. This is a "Hail Mary" situation and it's long tradition in football at all levels NOT TO CALL contact fouls on such a play. Our own Seahawks were technically guilty of DPI as well on the last play of the Rams game, but the officials did not throw the flag. That is normal and everyone that plays in the NFL knows it (and Larry Fitzgerald after the "fail mary" bru-ha-ha even said as much).

 

[therealjohncarlson]

Looked like Tom Brady flinched on that throw, causing it to be underthrown. That's all on him.

And like Willie McGinest said "We were taught to never let it come down to a single call by a referee."

Kind of counterintuitive, no? Not making a call is on the same side of a coin as making a call on the same play. The refs don't get to just not do their jobs on the last play of the game. It's unfair to the team the penalty is committed on to play a certain way all game and get bamboozled on the last play of the game.

Not really. This is a "Hail Mary" situation and it's long tradition in football at all levels NOT TO CALL contact fouls on such a play. Our own Seahawks were technically guilty of DPI as well on the last play of the Rams game, but the officials did not throw the flag. That is normal and everyone that plays in the NFL knows it (and Larry Fitzgerald after the "fail mary" bru-ha-ha even said as much).

Sorry I disagree with you on this. I also think Tate should have been called for OPI

 

[Polaris]

Sorry I disagree with you on this. I also think Tate should have been called for OPI

It is what it is. In the last decade there have been TWO contact fouls called on "Hail Mary" situations (last play of the game/half needing a passing TD in the endzone) and both were far more egregious than what we saw a few days ago.

Larry Fitzgerald flat out stated (and IIRC the replacement ref told us the the NFL trainers told the replacement refs the same thing) that contact fouls ARE NOT CALLED on such plays.

It is what it is. I like it. Swallow the whistle on the last play. Do not let a penalty decide the game.