Controversey in Denver

[dolphins4life]

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.

[Cathal]

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.

[dolphins4life]

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. 

[fyo]

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.).

[fyo]

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?

[dolphins4life]

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.

[fyo]

^ 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.

[Tenshot13]

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...

[CF DolFan]

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.).

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.

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?

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

[fyo]

The NFL has allowed for this type of play for years now (close to a decade according to the information I just Googled).

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.

[Tenshot13]

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.

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.

[Phishfan]

^^^ 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.

[fyo]

^ 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.

[fyo]

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

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.