NFL Refs are a joke

[powerchord86]

Maybe not PI because of not catchable but definitely holding big time.

 

[JDM]

Idk about that...I don't want to get too much into hypothetical here, but I felt if not held Gronk at best would have been able to maybe break up the pick. From the angle I saw because it was really an underthrow, or back shoulder throw the underneath guy had the best position on the ball regardless of whether Gronk was held or not...Gronk would've had to change direction pretty suddenly to have any real shot at the ball.

Just from that you can't call uncatchable.

If I can find a gif of the whole play from a fixed angle I'll show where the contact started and where the ball ended up. Gronk was within reach of where the ball ended up when he was hit. If he can be moved several yards backwards in that time, he could have easily came back less than a yard.

 

[bksballer89]

Refs should have never thrown the flag. They should've done like they always do on the final play of game which is let everything go and keep their flags in their pocket. After you threw the flag for the obvious PI, no way should you have picked up the flag. Why would the defender hug Gronk if the ball wasn't catchable? Wouldn't you just leave him alone?

 

[Midnightangel]

Just from that you can't call uncatchable.

If I can find a gif of the whole play from a fixed angle I'll show where the contact started and where the ball ended up. Gronk was within reach of where the ball ended up when he was hit. If he can be moved several yards backwards in that time, he could have easily came back less than a yard.

I've seen it a few times and Gronk had no shot. He wasn't moving toward the ball, he was moving away from it, the ball was thrown way short. No way he makes the catch.

 

[Midnightangel]

Refs should have never thrown the flag. They should've done like they always do on the final play of game which is let everything go and keep their flags in their pocket. After you threw the flag for the obvious PI, no way should you have picked up the flag. Why would the defender hug Gronk if the ball wasn't catchable? Wouldn't you just leave him alone?

The defender had his back to the play and the ball. He had no idea where it was.

Again, if Tom had put the ball where he was supposed to put it, it's PI no question.

 

[MrMoJoRisin63]

I've seen it a few times and Gronk had no shot. He wasn't moving toward the ball, he was moving away from it, the ball was thrown way short. No way he makes the catch.

Agreed, but no way you will get a Pats homer to admit that. Just like you can't get a 9ers homer to admit the Brees hit was high. Fans are fickle and oft times very biased and most time lack objectivity

 

[JDM]

I've seen it a few times and Gronk had no shot. He wasn't moving toward the ball, he was moving away from it, the ball was thrown way short. No way he makes the catch.

The ball was thrown short, yes. But the distance he theoretically would have had to come back for the ball was less than a yard from where he was interfered with. The distance he was moved in the same time frame was at least three.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Just from that you can't call uncatchable.

If I can find a gif of the whole play from a fixed angle I'll show where the contact started and where the ball ended up. Gronk was within reach of where the ball ended up when he was hit. If he can be moved several yards backwards in that time, he could have easily came back less than a yard.

I understand as a NE fan, maybe you see it differently, but I really thought at best Gronk could do was break up the INT...but with the angle the underneath guy had on the ball, I'm not even sure he could've done that much.

 

[JDM]

I'm not saying whether he actually makes a play on the ball. I don't know.

What I do know is that he was certainly in good enough position when he was interfered with that calling the ball "uncatchable" to pick up the flag was a joke.

 

[Broncos6482]

I didn't see Gronk make much of an effort to work back towards the ball. It looked to me that his momentum carried him towards the back of the end zone moreso than any contact from Keuchly. I think it was a good no call.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

"I'm not saying whether he actually makes a play on the ball. I don't know."

With no dog in the fight really, the fact that they (refs) talked about it I felt pretty comfortable with them picking it up. You would like to see the game end on a cleaner note, but that play didn't lose the game...to say it did goes back to "if".

 

[depraved]

The 49er's and Pats both did not lose their games, the refs simply just played better. Games are always determined on one single play where the refs either make a good call or bad call. The losing team never had any other opportunities to win their games....

 

[Broncos6482]

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the play.

The Panthers, Not the Refs, Beat New England - The Triangle Blog - Grantland

From the article:

So, should there have been a penalty on the play? There are three possibilities I've heard bandied about. One, illegal contact, is a total nonstarter. You can only call illegal contact if the quarterback is still in the pocket and the ball is in his hands, and the contact between Gronkowski and Luke Kuechly occurred after the pass was thrown. That one is off the table. The second is defensive pass interference, which was the call made by Miles on the field before the umpire and side judge conferred with Miles and the rest of Clete Blakeman's crew, coming to the conclusion that the ball was uncatchable. I tend to agree with the officials here. Gronkowski is a freak athlete, but his momentum was carrying him away from the pass before Kuechly ever touched him. Even if you ignore that there were multiple Panthers defenders between Gronkowski and the ball, I don't think Gronkowski gets back to that pass if he's going up against air. The pass was so underthrown, in fact, that I wonder whether Tom Brady was purposely trying to draw a pass interference call with the throw to get his offense into a much more feasible game-winning situation. If the pass is uncatchable, there's no conversation to be had about pass interference.

The third possibility is defensive holding, which has a much stronger case. Defensive holding has no such disclaimer about the ball being in the quarterback's hands or the receiver being near a catchable pass, so the arguments against the first two possible calls don't apply. Kuechly's actions on the play also seem to fit one of the NFL's definitions of defensive holding:

The defensive player cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an eligible receiver in a manner that restricts movement as the play develops. Beyond this five-yard limitation, a defender may use his hands or arms ONLY to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. In such reaction, the defender may not contact a receiver who attempts to take a path to evade him.
Given that description, I think it's fair to call Kuechly for defensive holding on the play. Once the officials decided the pass was uncatchable and that Kuechly's action then could not represent pass interference, they should have recognized that Kuechly's actions still qualified as a penalty and flagged him for holding, giving the Patriots five yards and an untimed down to win the game.

 

[Breaker99]

The 49er's and Pats both did not lose their games, the refs simply just played better. Games are always determined on one single play where the refs either make a good call or bad call. The losing team never had any other opportunities to win their games....

 

[depraved]

I never said they were good calls. The problem I have with all the bad calls is the inconsistency this year. It's a toss up if roughing, interference, or anything will be called at all this year, and it varies play to play in almost every game. Teams still play 60 minutes last time I checked, so there are plenty of opportunities for teams to win or lose a game. It shouldn't/doesn't come down to one single play every game. The 49er's still had plenty of opportunities after that call to win the game. The pats still had 59.9 minutes to win this game and not have to leave it up to the refs to "decide" the outcome...

 

[Midnightangel]

The ball was thrown short, yes. But the distance he theoretically would have had to come back for the ball was less than a yard from where he was interfered with. The distance he was moved in the same time frame was at least three.

Not from the play I saw. He was going backwards and standing up. In order to catch this pass he would have had to have been not only moving forward but diving forward. His backwards momentum alone precluded this.

 

[MrMoJoRisin63]

The 49er's and Pats both did not lose their games, the refs simply just played better. Games are always determined on one single play where the refs either make a good call or bad call. The losing team never had any other opportunities to win their games....

When both teams look at the W L Column I think it's clear both teams lost.

 

[eric5577x]

I didn't see Gronk make much of an effort to work back towards the ball. It looked to me that his momentum carried him towards the back of the end zone moreso than any contact from Keuchly. I think it was a good no call.

Looks like Gronk is trying to stop and come back, but Luke has him wrapped up. Again, not PI, but holding or Illegal contact. The ref threw the flag for a reason, then they said no flag. Oh well....moving on.

 

[eric5577x]

I love the refs comment. "Incidental contact by Luke when the player intercepted the pass"

 

[MrMoJoRisin63]

I love the refs comment. "Incidental contact by Luke when the player intercepted the pass"

While I agree with the no call that was far from incidental. But wait, if Gronk was moving backward if he then attempted to move forward to catch the uncatchable pass and Kiechly was in his path wouln't that be incidental?