The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25460880/did-broncos-get-away-with-pass-interference-on-gronkowski-in-end-zone (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25460880/did-broncos-get-away-with-pass-interference-on-gronkowski-in-end-zone)

Should this have been a penalty call on the Broncos?

Also, there was a possible missed PI on the Broncos on the ensuing drive.

From what I saw in this game it seemed like the refs were on the Broncos side. 

Again, I am being objective, I am not a closet Patriots fan.

If you take a screen shot with his right arm around Gronk, yeah, you could kind of assume it is PI but when watching the replay, he in no way hindered Gronk's movement. Talib's left hand does grab his jersey but it doesn't look like he interfered at all.

Well, isn't grabbing the jersey a penalty in itself?

There were so many calls against the Patriots that day. 

So many uncalled pass interferences.

I will not be watching the Super Bowl this year because the AFC championship was tainted by bad officiating. 

Goodell clearly did not want to have the Patriots win after all the deflategate stuff. 

Considering Brady got away with every kind of intentional grounding possible, no, the refs were not on Denver's side.

If anything, the refs were pro Brady and the Patriots, who got away with a shitload of crap this game.

And, honestly, I'm not convinced you are NOT a closet Patriots fan. Either that or your perception is EXTREMELY skewed by being inundated with Boston media garbage.

(Oh, and can we just get rid of intentional grounding? Never liked the rule anyway.).

Can someone explain the backwards pass play to me?

I guess I buy that it was a backwards pass (and untouched by the defender initially), although I certainly couldn't tell on my TV. With a bit of aid, a few more freeze frames, the ability to zoom in and pan at will... yeah, okay, whatever, let's assume it was a backwards pass.

Now look at the play again. WAY before the Patriots pick up the ball, a ref storms onto the field signalling incomplete, play over. Why doesn't this stop the play? Are players now supposed to completely disregard the refs and just keep playing until they are double extra completely sure the play is dead?

The sound was pretty bad and I couldn't tell if the ref whistled. If he did, I assume the play would have been dead no matter what? Or?

You can't be called for intentional grounding when there is a receiver in the area.

I don't get how the refs missed that call on Gronkowski in the end zone.  Talib is grabbing his jersey clearly affecting Gronkowski's ability to jump and catch the ball.

Is there any way you can argue that that is NOT PI?

Goodell clearly did not want the Patriots to win another Super Bowl.

^ The idea that the league issues any kind of guidance to their refs to affect the outcome of games is laughable and only goes to show that you have drunk too much of that NE Kool-Aid.

Could the refs have called PI on the Gronk play? Sure, anything is possible. I'd argue that the non-call would happen nine out of ten times and I think it's the right one. Is there contact? Yes, but the only contact *with effect* happens when the defenders goes after the ball and that contact is allowed because of that.

As for intentional grounding, Brady had throws where he just threw it into the ground without ANY receiver within 10 years and nothing on the trajectory. He had at least one where he might have been out of the pocket (hard to tell on the replay I saw), but the ball was several yards short of reaching the scrimmage line - and no receiver in sight.

There is no controversy.  If there was PI, he hid it well enough not to get called for it.

Your not going to watch the Superbowl because of that play?  Sounds like something a Pats fan would say...

I kept calling for intentional grounding as well. We have all seen it called for much less than what he gets away with. I didn't realize it is allowed to be selectively enforced.



The play was whistled dead as soon as it hit the ground so there was no need for a Denver player to try and recover it. Not sure how this play was even reviewable.

The NFL has allowed for this type of play for years now (close to a decade according to the information I just Googled). If there is any question at all you need to fall on the ball even if a whistle has sounded because what happened is exactly what the NFL allows to happen. This turnover falls completely on the RB who didn't have his head in the game.

I have clear recollection of at least one game where the fumbling team retained possession solely because a ref had blown his whistle prior to the defender obtaining possession.

The rules also explicitly state that the play is dead when a ref blows his whistle, inadvertently or not.

For real, first he drops an easy lateral, then he doesn't even jump on the ball once it hits the ground.  No excuse for that.  There is a reason you saw C.J. Anderson in for the majority of the rest of the game.

^^^ Then we have contradicting mandates from the NFL because this isn't the first time I've seen it. The NFL has allowed for this review for close to a decade now.

edit: Now I am seeing the rule change being about half as many years ago as I initially saw. I think you may be recalling something before the rule change or maybe saw a blown call by that officiating crew.

You will notice in this article the official yesterday was involved in the call that got the rule changed.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1015183-lions-vs-saints-officials-make-correct-call-on-drew-brees-fumble

An inadvertent whistle which occurs during the course of a fumble does not prevent a player from recovering the football in the immediate aftermath of said whistle. This rule is different in the NFL than at some other levels—such as high school—and came into existence in the wake of referee Ed Hochuli's well known inadvertent whistle gaffe in 2008.

^ Well, the NFL changed the rules at one point, allowing replay to confer possession after a fumble-ruled-something-else. This was in response to the situation in the 49ers - Seahawks game in the postseason three years ago. The rule, called the NaVorro Bowman Rule" for a while, allows the refs to use replay to "review recovery of a loose ball in field of play".

There might be other rules that apply to similar situations that apply here.

Quoting myself, just to point out the wording in the 2015 NFL Rule book, Section 2, Article 1 (my emphasis):

(m) when an official sounds his whistle erroneously while the ball is still in play, the ball becomes dead immediately
(1) If the ball is in player possession, the team in possession may elect to put the ball in play where it has been declared
dead or to replay the down.
(2) If the ball is a loose ball resulting from a fumble, backward pass, or illegal forward pass, the team last in possession
may elect to put the ball in play at the spot where possession was lost or to replay the down.
(3) If the ball is a loose ball resulting from a legal forward pass, a free kick, a fair-catch kick, or a scrimmage kick, the ball
is returned to the previous spot, and the down is replayed.
(4) If there is a foul by either team during any of the above, penalty enforcement is the same as for fouls during a run,
forward pass, kick, fumble, and backward pass. If the team in possession elects to replay the down, the penalty shall
be enforced from the previous spot.

^^^ Yes I read that in my research. No wonder the NFL can't get things straight. They make a rule that supercedes another rule but never correct the wording.

Firstly, Brady gets away with Intentional Grounding almost every game.  They never call it.  But, in yesterday's game, almost every time I thought he should get called, the ball went in the direction of an elegible receiver.  Although, it was quite underthrown and short and uncatchable, that's a loophole in the rule.

The non-called interference - in a ticky-tack game where the refs have laundry on the field every play, that would probably be called.  It wasn't excessive, but REFS MISS CALLS EVERY PLAY.  it happens.  If the Patriots are blaming that one play as why they lost, then they should re-look at their tackles' play and figure out why they couldn't block Ware and Miller all game.  Maybe re-evaluate their protection packages and think about how they've ignored any semblance of a running game for 10 years and they'll realize why they lost.

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/acZHip1VUdGwZzZsmGCs2SNvWOo=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5930307/gronk3.0.gif)

Here's another thing on your so called "Controversy"...did you really think Gronk was going to catch that ball when he was blanketed by two defenders?  It's not unheard of, especially for Gronk, but it was unlikely he would have caught that without what you call PI (which was ticky-tacky at best)...

Look at this GIF D4L...watch it...keep watching it...watch it loop over and over.  Do you REALLY think this is PI?  If the answer is yes, then you really are a Pats fan.  If it is no, you're still a Pats fan, but your starting to hide it better again.

EDIT:  Sorry, it was THREE defenders...

I don't think you can look at one play in a game like this and ask if the refs blew a call -- especially with pass interference.  There's simultaneously pass interference and holding on just about every play, on both sides of the ball.  There's so much judgment.  Besides, it's one play.  The Pats couldn't score TDs all game.  So, it doesn't excuse a bad call, but there are so many opportunities to make plays in a game that choosing one play late is lazy criticism, in my opinion.

Continuously watching that gif, I hold onto my opinion that it wasn't PI. Talib wasn't interfering with Gronk. And when you see the end of the replay, Gronk is holding onto the fabric behind his helmet. He thought Talib was holding him down by his shoulders. In actuality, Talib jumped first, which caused Gronk to not jump as high because Gronk jumped into Talib. It's a very good non-call.

His td catch could have been offensive pass interference. That call you are referencing is never going to get called. It was a Hail Mary type pass into double coverage.

I'd also argue that the ball was uncatchable.  Four players jumped for a ball in the back of the end zone and it sailed over all of them.  That's a big component...

^^^ Not that I think the was a PI to be called but Talib is five inches shorter than Gronk and Talib got his hand on the ball. I don't think it would have been out of Gronk's reach.

Andrea the Giant couldn't have caught that pass.

Becasue Talib has an amazing vertical I guess? He had his hand on it. A guy five inches taller can't get to it? I'm not arguing PI but that ball definitely was not in the uncatchable range.

I don't know for sure but I'd guess Talib has a higher vertical leap than Gronk, just based on body mass.

Edit looked it up:

Gronk 33.5"
Talib: 38"

Edit to add - Look at the end of that gif, when the ball goes by it appears that the yellow in the bottom of the screen is the crossbar.  So that ball is roughly 10 feet off the ground when it crosses the end line.  Gronk is a beast but I don't think even he could come down with that ball if there was no one near him for 10 yards.  Even Talib, who was the only one that got a hand on it, just barely hit it with his fingertips...

Is she related to the late, great Andre the Giant?

Don't look at that video. Look at another angle if you want to see how far in bounds they were. The inclusion of the crossbar shows more about camera angle than anything to do with position on the field. The feet are still inside the painted letter "O" in Broncos when they jump. That tells you they are probably six feet inside the endzone still. Also, the height of the ball crossing the end line is after Talib has his hand on it. I can bat a ball ten more feet in the air after contact that doesn't mean I couldn't catch it.

And to consider your 10 feet issue and Gronk not being able to get there, the guy is 6'5" has 33 1/2" vertical. He could damn near headbutt 10" without raising his arms.

What a coincident...Andrea the Giant was the name of my slumpbuster in college...

Here's a disturbing fact:

The Patriots could have at least nine super bowls if not for bad officiating

2005: PI call on Samuel plus missed call on forced fumble on INT return
2006: Five bad calls against Indy in the AFC title game
2007: Missed holding call on the Tyree play
2013: Missed holding call on the first drive of the AFC title game.
2015: Missed PI on Gronk in the endzone.

And they could have 0 Super Bowls if not for the tuck rule.

You keep saying the word "fact", but I don't think that means what you think it means.

Dude, you don't do yourself any favors. Virtually no one other than Pats fans think that was PI but you have brought it up more times in these forums than I have heard from all other sources combined. Stop obsessing on "bad" calls against the Pats if you dislike them so much. Also, these AFC Championship games don't equate to Super Bowl titles but you keep listing them as examples. I see very little in the way of fact here. It is almost as if MikeO were making the post as a Pats fan.

It is because I dislike them so much, especially Brady, that I keep obsessing over them. 

(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/fyodor_/bradyfacepalm.jpg)

^^^ That is Awe...and then Some! ;D

That some up the paragraph I was about to type out very nicely.

Talib's arms encircling Gronk does NOT constitute PI because it did not affect his ability to jump for the ball.  This is common on plays like this because it is like boxing out in basketball.

The thing I question was his arm grabbing the jersey.  That is what prevented him from jumping as high as he could.

Watching this over and over, I think I might have something to say the refs made the right call.

<gets excited>

AHA I THINK THE REFS MADE THE RIGHT CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch the video. 

Notice When Gronk jumps for it, the ball arrives almost instantly, and the defenders converge on him.  The ball falls incomplete.

Even if he had not been held, he still wouldn't have caught it because he wouldn't have been able to get his arms together in time because of number 33.

But number 33's actions are not illegal because it is incidental contact and he clearly is making a play on the ball which he has the right to do. 

Thus, the refs determined that the pass was not catchable.

Also, if there is any question, the refs are not supposed to throw the flag.

Is the legitimate?   

Did you see my other thread btw?  Was Inigo Montoya a fan of the guy he was obsessing over?