Officiating is brutal

[Connorbear]

The no-call pass interference in the New England/Carolina game could end up costing us a playoff spot. The most-watched sport in the US should have full-time referees who know what they are doing and can actually keep up with the athletes on the field.

 

Peace

 

 

[GakMan23]

The no-call pass interference in the New England/Carolina game could end up costing us a playoff spot. The most-watched sport in the US should have full-time referees who know what they are doing and can actually keep up with the athletes on the field.

 

Peace

 

 

But the referees are right 99% of the time and we don't know anything when it comes to Pass interference Refs don't dictate games at all....

[jason]

That was the correct call. It's a philosophy talked about in officiating circles as it pertains to permissible acts. When a defender is committing defensive pass interference BEHIND where the pass is intercepted, then the pass is ultimately uncatchable, and the the DPI shouldn't be called. The two officials that conferred with the back judge probably told him that. And, guess what? The Back Judge is the most inexperienced on the crew.

 

Back Judge - Since 2008

Umpire - Since 1998

Side Judge - Since 2002

 

It was heat of the moment, he didn't see the whole thing, didn't process the philosophy, and that's why he was overturned.

[bowlingtwig]

That was the correct call. It's a philosophy talked about in officiating circles as it pertains to permissible acts. When a defender is committing defensive pass interference BEHIND where the pass is intercepted, then the pass is ultimately uncatchable, and the the DPI shouldn't be called. The two officials that conferred with the back judge probably told him that. And, guess what? The Back Judge is the most inexperienced on the crew.

 

Back Judge - Since 2008

Umpire - Since 1998

Side Judge - Since 2002

 

It was heat of the moment, he didn't see the whole thing, didn't process the philosophy, and that's why he was overturned.

So in your opinion the refs were perfect all weekend?

[jason]

So in your opinion the refs were perfect all weekend?

 

Certainly not. I'm sure if we could see their evaluations we'd be able to easily confirm this. There are problems in literally every game.

 

But on the play in question, the ultimate decision was the correct decision.

[Connorbear]

That was the correct call. It's a philosophy talked about in officiating circles as it pertains to permissible acts. When a defender is committing defensive pass interference BEHIND where the pass is intercepted, then the pass is ultimately uncatchable, and the the DPI shouldn't be called. The two officials that conferred with the back judge probably told him that. And, guess what? The Back Judge is the most inexperienced on the crew.

 

Back Judge - Since 2008

Umpire - Since 1998

Side Judge - Since 2002

 

It was heat of the moment, he didn't see the whole thing, didn't process the philosophy, and that's why he was overturned.

Then why isn't it defensive holding?

 

Peace

[GakMan23]

Then why isn't it defensive holding?

 

Peace

 

Exactly!!! And funny how former NFL FOOTBALL PLAYERS said it was a horrible call. The reason it was uncatchable is Gronk was held as he was trying to come back to catch the ball. But they don't know what they are talking about either. Because everyone knows JASON KNOWS ALL and he said so. BUAHAHAHA.

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Should that not be at least defensive holding? 5 yds, automatic first down and one more attempt...

 

That was the correct call. It's a philosophy talked about in officiating circles as it pertains to permissible acts. When a defender is committing defensive pass interference BEHIND where the pass is intercepted, then the pass is ultimately uncatchable, and the the DPI shouldn't be called. The two officials that conferred with the back judge probably told him that. And, guess what? The Back Judge is the most inexperienced on the crew.

 

Back Judge - Since 2008

Umpire - Since 1998

Side Judge - Since 2002

 

It was heat of the moment, he didn't see the whole thing, didn't process the philosophy, and that's why he was overturned.

 

[madlithuanian]

Exactly!

 

Then why isn't it defensive holding?

 

Peace

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Exactly!!! And funny how former NFL FOOTBALL PLAYERS said it was a horrible call. The reason it was uncatchable is Gronk was held as he was trying to come back to catch the ball. But they don't know what they are talking about either. Because everyone knows JASON KNOWS ALL and he said so. BUAHAHAHA.

 

Be careful in saying that just because former players say its wrong, it must be. One of those guys (at least last night) was Dilfer aka "Corndog".

 

I think it was explained pretty well ... after the fact. I think the fact that the ref didnt explain the call is what irked many more than anything. However would that same call been made ...in similar fashion...randomly through any other game...probably not.

 

I do have to admit that watching the smug Brady get it wrong was enriching.

 

Lastly, why would you cheer for Carolina? They are in contention for an NFC spot. They or NO will get the NFC South at this rate, the other .. A much valued wildcard.

[GakMan23]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-patriots...-141509835.html

 

This....

[GakMan23]

Be careful in saying that just because former players say its wrong, it must be. One of those guys (at least last night) was Dilfer aka "Corndog".

 

I think it was explained pretty well ... after the fact. I think the fact that the ref didnt explain the call is what irked many more than anything. However would that same call been made ...in similar fashion...randomly through any other game...probably not.

 

I do have to admit that watching the smug Brady get it wrong was enriching.

 

Lastly, why would you cheer for Carolina? They are in contention for an NFC spot. They or NO will get the NFC South at this rate, the other .. A much valued wildcard.

 

 

Read the article I linked, that is why it should have been called. Regardless of outcome I don't want the integrity of the game ruined by B.S. calls. I may have wanted Carolina to lose but not by New England being cheated, though after the "tuck rule" crap during that playoff game, they kind of deserve it. I do not EVER want a referee to dictate the outcome of a game.

[bowlingtwig]

Read the article I linked, that is why it should have been called. Regardless of outcome I don't want the integrity of the game ruined by B.S. calls. I may have wanted Carolina to loose but not by New England being cheated, though after the "tuck rule" crap during that playoff game, they kind of deserve it. I do not EVER want a referee to dictate the outcome of a game.

Agreed 100%

[azbearsfan]

A no call there is absolutely wrong. No doubt about it.

[AZ54]

Can't be defensive holding as the contact occurred after the ball was in the air. PI is called but waived off correctly due to the INT occurring in front of the play thus making the ball uncatchable. We have all seen PI calls waived off before due to a ball being uncatchable, it happens all the time and Tom Cry-Brady is not deserving of special rules. If people are so pissed off about refs blowing calls and impacting the game then why are you not complaining about the obvious leg whip by the Patriots Olineman that nearly blew out Charles Johnson's knee? No flag on the play and it made a huge difference in Carolina's defense the rest of the game.

[GakMan23]

Can't be defensive holding as the contact occurred after the ball was in the air. PI is called but waived off correctly due to the INT occurring in front of the play thus making the ball uncatchable. We have all seen PI calls waived off before due to a ball being uncatchable, it happens all the time and Tom Cry-Brady is not deserving of special rules. If people are so pissed off about refs blowing calls and impacting the game then why are you not complaining about the obvious leg whip by the Patriots Olineman that nearly blew out Charles Johnson's knee? No flag on the play and it made a huge difference in Carolina's defense the rest of the game.

 

 

So the second the ball is in the air defensive players can grab receivers and stop their route eh? lol So based on your thought process, timing patterned curls or slants could be stopped by grabbing the receiver the second the ball goes into the air, or on any deep pass just grab the receiver so it stops his movement and therefore the ball would sail well past were they are and make it thus uncatchable, the second it leaves the quarterbacks hand.

[Mongo3451]

I think it was a bad call. Gronk was contacted 4 yards deep in the end-zone and the ball was intercepted 4 yards deep. Sure it was a low 4 yards, but Gronk could have planted and tried to go over/around the defender to at least make a play. It would have been a miracle, but it was possibly catchable. And "not catchable" was the likely reason the flag was picked up.

 

So, by definition the refs got it right. But, their interpretation of the factors that make that decision were flawed. In the future, all picked up flags need explained, at a minimum.

 

 

 

[bowlingtwig]

I think it was a bad call. Gronk was contacted 4 yards deep in the end-zone and the ball was intercepted 4 yards deep. Sure it was a low 4 yards, but Gronk could have planted and tried to go over/around the defender to at least make a play. It would have been a miracle, but it was possibly catchable. And "not catchable" was the likely reason the flag was picked up.

 

So, by definition the refs got it right. But, their interpretation of the factors that make that decision were flawed. In the future, all picked up flags need explained, at a minimum.

Wasnt there a DPI can earlier in the game thrown to Olsen that was 10 yards over his head. How is that catchable but the final play to gronk wasnt

[adam]

Certainly not. I'm sure if we could see their evaluations we'd be able to easily confirm this. There are problems in literally every game.

 

But on the play in question, the ultimate decision was the correct decision.

Correct decision? Did you see the play? The Receiver is being held, even if that happened away from the ball, it would still be a penalty for at least illegal contact since he impeded the receiver's progress.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Can't be defensive holding as the contact occurred after the ball was in the air. PI is called but waived off correctly due to the INT occurring in front of the play thus making the ball uncatchable. We have all seen PI calls waived off before due to a ball being uncatchable, it happens all the time and Tom Cry-Brady is not deserving of special rules.

 

 

The best arguement similar to what you're referring to is when a ball is tipped while in route to the receiver. If a receiver and defender are locked up, pushing and shoving, while the ball is in its route and it gets tipped, then no penalty. This wasn't really that case.

 

Was Gronk intending to "go to the back of the endzone"? Possibly. Was he impeded in doing that? No. Was Brady's pass intended to go to the back of the endzone? Probably. Did Brady's pass not make it to the intended point? Probably. Could have Gronk tried to return to an errant pass? Maybe. Was he impeded in making that move back to catch an underthrown pass? Didn't look like he tried.

 

These are all things that were considered (according to the later explanations from the officiating folks) and not an easy choice to be made in the heat of the moment. I'm sure it was covered in the post play conference they had on the field.

 

And Gak if you're so against officials making bad calls that determine team's fates, maybe you should have watched the Seattle-GB game last year in Seattle. I think a fair number of GB fans would say that call made a lot of difference in the season that year. I know they were substitute refs but nevertheless, the call stood.

[GakMan23]

The best arguement similar to what you're referring to is when a ball is tipped while in route to the receiver. If a receiver and defender are locked up, pushing and shoving, while the ball is in its route and it gets tipped, then no penalty. This wasn't really that case.

 

Was Gronk intending to "go to the back of the endzone"? Possibly. Was he impeded in doing that? No. Was Brady's pass intended to go to the back of the endzone? Probably. Did Brady's pass not make it to the intended point? Probably. Could have Gronk tried to return to an errant pass? Maybe. Was he impeded in making that move back to catch an underthrown pass? Didn't look like he tried.

 

These are all things that were considered (according to the later explanations from the officiating folks) and not an easy choice to be made in the heat of the moment. I'm sure it was covered in the post play conference they had on the field.

 

And Gak if you're so against officials making bad calls that determine team's fates, maybe you should have watched the Seattle-GB game last year in Seattle. I think a fair number of GB fans would say that call made a lot of difference in the season that year. I know they were substitute refs but nevertheless, the call stood.

 

 

I did see that and agree it was a horrible call. I could also bring up the Raider, Patriot post season "tuck rule" game. I am sure there are many more examples as well. Whether I watched it or not, unfortunately doesn't change what happend. I will say this it does tend to make a person think, don't it?

[CrackerDog]

I think it was a bad call. Gronk was contacted 4 yards deep in the end-zone and the ball was intercepted 4 yards deep. Sure it was a low 4 yards, but Gronk could have planted and tried to go over/around the defender to at least make a play. It would have been a miracle, but it was possibly catchable. And "not catchable" was the likely reason the flag was picked up.

 

So, by definition the refs got it right. But, their interpretation of the factors that make that decision were flawed. In the future, all picked up flags need explained, at a minimum.

 

THIS! You're 100% right Mongo. To rule the ball uncatchable in that situation is to assume that the player being dragged toward the back of the endzone wasn't capable of adjusting his route. We aren't talking about an interception that took place 10 yards in front of a would-be interference call. This all transpired in the same general area.

 

Not that I lost any sleep over seeing Brady lose. I hate that arrogant POS. And I predicted a Carolina win so I had that going for me. But the playoff implications for the beloved are clear. That's definitely unfortunate.

 

So, despite what know-it-all Jason says, this was clearly a blown call.

[AZ54]

So the second the ball is in the air defensive players can grab receivers and stop their route eh? lol So based on your thought process, timing patterned curls or slants could be stopped by grabbing the receiver the second the ball goes into the air, or on any deep pass just grab the receiver so it stops his movement and therefore the ball would sail well past were they are and make it thus uncatchable, the second it leaves the quarterbacks hand.

 

Yes, if the ball is tipped or if it is uncatchable...you are correct.

[AZ54]

THIS! You're 100% right Mongo. To rule the ball uncatchable in that situation is to assume that the player being dragged toward the back of the endzone wasn't capable of adjusting his route. We aren't talking about an interception that took place 10 yards in front of a would-be interference call. This all transpired in the same general area.

 

Not that I lost any sleep over seeing Brady lose. I hate that arrogant POS. And I predicted a Carolina win so I had that going for me. But the playoff implications for the beloved are clear. That's definitely unfortunate.

 

So, despite what know-it-all Jason says, this was clearly a blown call.

 

The ruling was not that Gronk could not have come back and caught the ball, it was the the ball was uncatchable because a defender, not the one who interferred with him, had stepped in front of the play and caught the ball ahead of where he could have. This has happened before in games where someone undercuts the play and intercepts the ball while the receiver was clearly contacted before the pass would have arrived and no flag.

 

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference

 

Note 3: Pass interference for both teams ends when the pass is touched.

 

The refs on the field judged that the interference occurred at about the same time as the interception. Just like they judged the Patriots leg whip earlier in the game was not a penalty. Its a judgment call and these guys get several during every game that are questionable. I happen to agree the interception occurred at the same time and in a spot the receiver was not able to get to in order to compete for the horribly under-thrown ball.

 

Even if it was a blown call I accept these calls as part of the game and most often they balance out. As I said before the Patriots got a huge benefit from one blown call earlier in the game for no leg whip penalty (drive continued for points not to mention taking out the defense's best player) and lost points on another judgment call. That's a wash so I see zero net gain or loss to the Patriots from the officials.

 

 

[CrackerDog]

Even if it was a blown call I accept these calls as part of the game and most often they balance out.

 

As do I. Not debating that the refs aren't entitled to getting it wrong once in a while. Just that they clearly got it wrong this time. Just wish judgment calls were reviewable sometimes, particularly when they go against the Bears.