Around the NFL Week 11

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I'm sorry. Could you make that picture any smaller?

lmao

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Just so were all clear on whether or not he was held before the ball got there....

I dont think you, nor 90% of the people, understand the rule. It was pass interference, as evidenced by the ref throwing the flag, that is not in question. However, there is a rule in the NFL that if a ball is uncatchable, the pass interference is negated.

Which brings us to why was the ball ruled uncatchable? Because of another rule saying that if the ball is batted or intercepted by a defensive player before getting to the receiver, then its automatically ruled uncatchable. Since it was intercepted prior to arriving at Gronk, the ball being uncatchable rule is automatically put into effect.

Had the ball not been intercepted or deflected prior to arriving at Gronk, then the pass interference would have been enforced and NE would have the ball at the 1 and have one more play.

If you want to argue that its a stupid rule, so be it. But the ruling on the field based on the rules was the correct call. The interception automatically makes it considered an uncatchable ball. Once its ruled uncatchable, that negates the pass interference call.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

I dont think you, nor 90% of the people, understand the rule. It was pass interference, as evidenced by the ref throwing the flag, that is not in question. However, there is a rule in the NFL that if a ball is uncatchable, the pass interference is negated.

Which brings us to why was the ball ruled uncatchable? Because of another rule saying that if the ball is batted or intercepted by a defensive player before getting to the receiver, then its automatically ruled uncatchable. Since it was intercepted prior to arriving at Gronk, the ball being uncatchable rule is automatically put into effect.

Had the ball not been intercepted or deflected prior to arriving at Gronk, then the pass interference would have been enforced and NE would have the ball at the 1 and have one more play.

If you want to argue that its a stupid rule, so be it. But the ruling on the field based on the rules was the correct call. The interception automatically makes it considered an uncatchable ball. Once its ruled uncatchable, that negates the pass interference call.

Ehhhhh......seeing the replay of that play - it was pass interference. In this case, it doesn't have anything to do with the ball being tipped or intercepted - because the ball wasn't tipped prior to the interference, and the INT happened after Gronk was being interfered with. So the question comes down to if the ball was catchable. The defender impeded Gronk's ability to come back for the football. Looks to me that while it would have been a tough catch to make, Gronk could have had a shot at catching it. It wasn't so badly under thrown that Gronk could not have made a play for it if he wasn't being interfered with. It is a bad call.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

I dont think you, nor 90% of the people, understand the rule. It was pass interference, as evidenced by the ref throwing the flag, that is not in question. However, there is a rule in the NFL that if a ball is uncatchable, the pass interference is negated.

Which brings us to why was the ball ruled uncatchable? Because of another rule saying that if the ball is batted or intercepted by a defensive player before getting to the receiver, then its automatically ruled uncatchable. Since it was intercepted prior to arriving at Gronk, the ball being uncatchable rule is automatically put into effect.

Had the ball not been intercepted or deflected prior to arriving at Gronk, then the pass interference would have been enforced and NE would have the ball at the 1 and have one more play.

If you want to argue that its a stupid rule, so be it. But the ruling on the field based on the rules was the correct call. The interception automatically makes it considered an uncatchable ball. Once its ruled uncatchable, that negates the pass interference call.

Stupid rules helped the Pats get to the Super Bowl.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I'm sorry. Could you make that picture any smaller?

Looks big on my phone?

[punch it in]

Is it really small? Lol. It looks totally normal on my iphone.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Is it really small? Lol. It looks totally normal on my iphone.

Yeah, it's pretty small. I'm looking at it on my computer.

[redskins5044]

I believe it was uncatchable, but also think the penalty they threw on the Olsen pass was uncatchable. All penalties in a game are a judgment call the refs have to make. Only thing I don't understand is why couldn't they have called it holding, they do all the time on receivers who aren't the intended target.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

I dont think you, nor 90% of the people, understand the rule. It was pass interference, as evidenced by the ref throwing the flag, that is not in question. However, there is a rule in the NFL that if a ball is uncatchable, the pass interference is negated.

Which brings us to why was the ball ruled uncatchable? Because of another rule saying that if the ball is batted or intercepted by a defensive player before getting to the receiver, then its automatically ruled uncatchable. Since it was intercepted prior to arriving at Gronk, the ball being uncatchable rule is automatically put into effect.

Had the ball not been intercepted or deflected prior to arriving at Gronk, then the pass interference would have been enforced and NE would have the ball at the 1 and have one more play.

If you want to argue that its a stupid rule, so be it. But the ruling on the field based on the rules was the correct call. The interception automatically makes it considered an uncatchable ball. Once its ruled uncatchable, that negates the pass interference call.

Yes but the ball was deflected BEFORE it got to Gronk BECAUSE Gronk was being held. You can assume in your head that there is no way Gronk is getting back to the ball before the defender intercepts it, but you cannot say definitively.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Yes but the ball was deflected BEFORE it got to Gronk because Gronk was being held. You can assume in your head that there is no way Gronk is getting back to the ball before the defender intercepts it, but you cannot say definitively.

It was intercepted before getting to Gronk because the DB read the play first and cut back in front of both of them.

If Gronk planted his foot and fought back for the ball, he would have put Kuechly on his ass. Gronk never made the attempt to come back to the ball so yes I can say that. Kuechly was not "driving" Gronk anywhere, just hugging him as they were both running to the back of the endzone.

[JoeRedskin]

Let's assume it's not pass interference based on the rule regarding an uncatchable ball.

Why isn't it defensive holding? LK had his arms hooked around Gronk and, in doing so, hindered his movement. It's not first and goal at the 1 but it should at least have been another offensive down.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let's assume it's not pass interference based on the rule regarding an uncatchable ball.

Why isn't it defensive holding? LK had his arms hooked around Gronk and, in doing so, hindered his movement. It's not first and goal at the 1 but it should at least have been another offensive down.

If im not mistaken, Once the ball is in the air being intended for Gronk, that makes any penalty that a defender commits against Gronk automatically pass interference. Holding is usually called when a receiver is not the intended target or before the ball is in the air if he is the intended target, such as grabbing his jersey right off the LOS. Not 100% sure on that one though.

If thats not the rule, then it should have been called defensive holding. As Kuechly was clearly hugging him.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let's assume it's not pass interference based on the rule regarding an uncatchable ball.

Why isn't it defensive holding? LK had his arms hooked around Gronk and, in doing so, hindered his movement. It's not first and goal at the 1 but it should at least have been another offensive down.

If they wanted to call defensive holding, I dont think anyone would have batted an eye.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let's assume it's not pass interference based on the rule regarding an uncatchable ball.

Why isn't it defensive holding? LK had his arms hooked around Gronk and, in doing so, hindered his movement. It's not first and goal at the 1 but it should at least have been another offensive down.

Exactly, but Im not buying uncatchable ball. This was clearly a catchable ball. NFL officials are taught that a ball is uncatchable when it is clearly out of the field of play, or severely under or overthrown. It is not deemed uncatchable because the player is getting mugged while another player deflects or intercepts the ball. Him getting mugged negates the whole ball getting knocked down or intercepted before it reaches the opponent.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

It was intercepted before getting to Gronk because the DB read the play first and cut back in front of both of them.

If Gronk planted his foot and fought back for the ball, he would have put Kuechly on his ass. Gronk never made the attempt to come back to the ball so yes I can say that. Kuechly was not "driving" Gronk anywhere, just hugging him as they were both running to the back of the endzone.

So if u take kuechly out of the play entirely it unfolds the same way???