Patriots @ Panthers. Monday Night Game

[joseephuss]

It is 38 not 58 who intercepted the pass. He read it and broke on it, but if Gronk isn't held, then maybe Gronk can make a play for the ball. Not a guarantee, but it doesn't have to be a guaranteed catch for it to be a penalty. The contact by Luechley(even 38 contacted Gronk as well) started just before 38 broke on the ball.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

But an obvious foul on the last play of the game, a call which would seriously affect the outcome of the game: That is a worst case scenario for refs. And rather than deal with it, they just said, 'oops'.

Yea it was really a bad non call or whatever they said. Kind of reminds me of that GB/Seachicken game where they gave Golden Tate a TD & the Pack guy had the ball.

I'm guessing last night's refs won't be working the SB...

And I kind of like the Pats. Well admire is the word I guess. They are run like a well oiled machine. I envy that.

 

[Rogah]

Sorry, anybody that thinks Gronk could have made a play for that is just wallowing in Patriots love.. not even close to catcheable, especially considering that ball was 58s from as soon as it was released.. Gronk would have had to actually knock down the LB that INT it, let alone come back to the ball..

Patriots homerism at it's finest

Sorry, but you're showing you don't understand the rules. "Uncatchable" means the ball was ridiculously overthrown, underthrown, etc. You cannot say "the ball was intercepted therefore it was uncatchable." As long as the contact takes place before the interception, which it clearly did in this case, then it should be a penalty.

Your own video clearly shows Gronkowski cutting about 4 yards deep in the end zone to make a play but getting ridden backwards. If it hadn't been intercepted, and if he hadn't been bear hugged out the back of the end zone, then he is definitely within range of catching the ball. And since you can't factor the interception into whether or not the ball is "uncatchable" then it really should have been a penalty.

 

[khiladi]

Who said it was ONLY uncatchable because it was intercepted... What I said was Gronk would not only have to shift his momentum back to the opposite direction, he would have to make a play through 58, who was the LB, who was already in front of him between the ball and Gronk... The fact hat 58 intercepted it is another clear evidence that Gronk wasn't anywhere in a postion to even catch the ball.

For somebody to surmise that Gronk would have even come anywhere near the ball, if he could miraculously change course after going full speed and slowing down, he had to beat 58 to he spot as well, and sorry, but Gronk ain't Flash..

 

[khiladi]

It is 38 not 58 who intercepted the pass. He read it and broke on it, but if Gronk isn't held, then maybe Gronk can make a play for the ball. Not a guarantee, but it doesn't have to be a guaranteed catch for it to be a penalty. The contact by Luechley(even 38 contacted Gronk as well) started just before 38 broke on the ball.

38, 58, 1902092092, you understand the point... I'm astonished people don't even know basic physics and what one calls momentum.. So now Gronk can defy the laws of physics and not deal with te momentum of hisbody carrying him forward and getting through two people?

And no, the HOLD did not start until after 38 broke on the ball and was already around them...

 

[Rogah]

Who said it was ONLY uncatchable because it was intercepted... What I said was Gronk would not only have to shift his momentum back to the opposite direction, he would have to make a play through 58, who was the LB, who was already in front of him between the ball and Gronk... The fact hat 58 intercepted it is another clear evidence that Gronk wasn't anywhere in a postion to even catch the ball.

For somebody to surmise that Gronk would have even come anywhere near the ball, if he could miraculously change course after going full speed and slowing down, he had to beat 58 to he spot as well, and sorry, but Gronk ain't Flash..

Your own video does you in. He is clearly in the process of cutting when he is 1 step into the end zone (when he is between the "O" and the "L" in "Carolina" at the 6 second mark). This is a professional tight end we're talking about, and arguably the best in the business. If he doesn't get interfered with, then he is standing right in the middle of the "O" when the ball arrives and clearly within range of catching it.

Like I said, if he doesn't get ridden backwards 5 yards and if the ball isn't intercepted, he is well within range of making that catch. And since you can't factor the interception when making the call, the right call is obviously interference.

 

[khiladi]

It doesn't matter if he was in the process of cutting.. He was running a route that brady UNDERTHREW.... If he doesn't get 'interfered' with, he's still going backward cause of MOMENTUM. if he doesn't get 'interfered' with, he's still got to run through Leuchley, as well as defy the laws of physics, and overcome his momentum.

The hilarious thing is you guys thinking he was ridden back by Luechley, when it's his momentum carrying him forward, considering he was going full speed, making a break a full speed, and Brady underthrows him...

 

[khiladi]

That's why Gronk didn't say anything in the beginning... and just wallowed until the ref threw the flag...

 

[khiladi]

LMAO, Leuchley pushed Gronk... even from 16 to 17 seconds, Leuchley pulled off.. Gronk got pushed off his route by that.. hilarious...

 

[Rogah]

It doesn't matter if he was in the process of cutting.. He was running a route that brady UNDERTHREW.... If he doesn't get 'interfered' with, he's still going backward cause of MOMENTUM. if he doesn't get 'interfered' with, he's still got to run through Leuchley, as well as defy the laws of physics, and overcome his momentum.

The hilarious thing is you guys thinking he was ridden back by Luechley, when it's his momentum carrying him forward, considering he was going full speed, making a break a full speed, and Brady underthrows him...

No the hilarious thing is that you don't think a tight end in the National Football League, and one who is arguably the best in the business, knows how to run a post pattern and make a cut.

If Kuechly doesn't bear hug him backwards 5 yards, he is standing right in the middle of that "O" when the ball arrives. And yes, the ball still would have been intercepted - but that's irrelevant when making the call.

 

[khiladi]

No, the hilarious thing is, your presuming that his route was to stop where Brady threw it.. The hilarious thing is you assuming Gronk, who is allegedly the best in the business, can defy the laws of physics and stop his momentum on a dime. The hilarious thing is you think a professioncal can beat a DOUBLE TEAM of professionals and run around Kuechly and defy his momentum and then run through 38. The hilarious thing is you considering that a bear hug...

Sorry, but INT is if the ball is catchable.. that wasn't.. Refs got it right and even your boy Gronk knew it wasn't, which is why he just stood there.

 

[Rogah]

Sorry, but INT is if the ball is catchable.. that wasn't.. Refs got it right and even your boy Gronk knew it wasn't, which is why he just stood there.

If you should decide you want to start speaking English instead of gibberish (and proving you have no clue what you are talking about) then I would enjoy continuing explaining to you how wrong you are. And just about everyone here knows it.

 

[Hook'em#11]

When you wish upon a star... keep dreaming..

I guess Gronk has the power to stop full speed and come back 5 feet, and not only that fight through the LB 58 who already broke to make a play for that ball, because it "clearly" was catcheable.. turn on a dime, come back full speed, and head straight through the Lb sitting on the bad throw by Brady...

Oh yeah, and Olson should have been called for PI, not the DB for holding...

Patriots fans.. got to love em... Brady gets breathed on, 15 yards...

Ya. okay there sport.. Hate on.. No matter if you are dead wrong. Typical.. Not a Pats fan here. Course, to me, Brady is and has been the Best qb in the NFL for a while now. But, he shouldn't get special treatment, no qb should..

I will agree with the football players who have ACTUALLY PLAYED and agree with me.. You keep on with that Madden sport, you'll get it someday.

Holding or PI.. The damn game still ain't over. The refs ended that game. And, that's where the BS is.

 

[joseephuss]

38, 58, 1902092092, you understand the point... I'm astonished people don't even know basic physics and what one calls momentum.. So now Gronk can defy the laws of physics and not deal with te momentum of hisbody carrying him forward and getting through two people?

And no, the HOLD did not start until after 38 broke on the ball and was already around them...

If you don't even know the difference between 38 and 58 or a DB and a LB, then why should anyone think you know the difference between a catchable ball and an uncatchable ball. The safety, number 38 is the guy who intercepted the pass. He was not already around Gronk when the contact occurred. The contact was occurring as Lester, the safety began his break to the ball. I don't think Gronk would have caught the pass; however, he would have at least had an attempt at catching the pass if not for Kuechly holding and pushing him further into the endzone. That is the epitome of pass interference. Sure he would still have to fight through a couple of defenders and the chances would have been slim of him catching the pass, but a slim chance is better than the no chance he got from being held and interfered with.

Defying the laws of physics would be Gronk cutting, beating everyone to the ball and catching the ball clean. No one expected that to happen. It is reasonable to expect Gronk to be able to cut and get in a position to dive at the ball and maybe at least getting a hand on it. That at least gives him a small opportunity that he wasn't afforded due to pass interference.

 

[khiladi]

If you should decide you want to start speaking English instead of gibberish (and proving you have no clue what you are talking about) then I would enjoy continuing explaining to you how wrong you are. And just about everyone here knows it.

Sorry, this isn't an English course... Being a spelling ***** and calling the grammar police is the sign of a losing argument, especially on the internet. How about I type proper English, and you take into account actual laws of physics?

 

[khiladi]

If you don't even know the difference between 38 and 58 or a DB and a LB, then why should anyone think you know the difference between a catchable ball and an uncatchable ball. The safety, number 38 is the guy who intercepted the pass. He was not already around Gronk when the contact occurred. The contact was occurring as Lester, the safety began his break to the ball. I don't think Gronk would have caught the pass; however, he would have at least had an attempt at catching the pass if not for Kuechly holding and pushing him further into the endzone. That is the epitome of pass interference. Sure he would still have to fight through a couple of defenders and the chances would have been slim of him catching the pass, but a slim chance is better than the no chance he got from being held and interfered with.

Defying the laws of physics would be Gronk cutting, beating everyone to the ball and catching the ball clean. No one expected that to happen. It is reasonable to expect Gronk to be able to cut and get in a position to dive at the ball and maybe at least getting a hand on it. That at least gives him a small opportunity that he wasn't afforded due to pass interference.

How about this? The number 38, 58, DB or LB has no bearing on the argument of whether something was interfereng or not other than identifying who the person was. And that would only be relevant when the audience doesn't know exactly what I'm talking about, which is not the case, which why the audience is 'correcting' me on the numbers and the position by typing over 200 plus words trying to make himself sound superior in an argument. I really don't care if he was 1,000,000 38 or 58 and arguing over it is utterly infantile, when you know clearly who I was referring to and what I was talking about. Cut the drama.

What part of momentum don't you understand? What part of even Stev Young and Trent Dilfer originally arguing FACE GUARDING and HOLDING do you not understand? Even these two guys knew it wasn't 'bear-hugging' like our above poster contend. And what part of 16 and 17 seconds on the above video, which clearly shows that Kuechly actually PULLED away from Gronk do you not understand? And what part of slow-motion making it a lot worse than you think do you not understanding? And what part of Kuechly being in front of the route of Gronk do you not understand that even if Kuechly didn't even breathe on his face cause he was two feet slow, Gronk would stll have to go through Kuechly do you not undersand, followed by 38 to even get to the ball considering Kuechly had the inside angle? Sorry, no matter which way you spin it, Gonk gave up. There was double-coverage. That's why Gronk sulked...

Gronk's route was a post route that Brady underthrew and Gronk would have to reverse momentum to even come back... He would then have to proceed through two defenders to get to the ball after shifting his momentum. And that still predicates that he could come back on a straight post to a ball underthrown by like 5 feet.

Yeah, small chance... uncatchable.. no PI... the end.. Panthers won..

 

[jobberone]

You can argue either way the pass was uncatchable. What's strange is they almost always call a penalty in that particular situation. Generally the ball needs to be thrown out of bounds or way over the head of the receiver. I like Carolina and picked them as my dark horse a few weeks ago. Solid D and decent offense. Newton is dangerous and fairly consistent now.

 

[joseephuss]

How about this? The number 38, 58, DB or LB has no bearing on the argument of whether something was interfereng or not other than identifying who the person was. And that would only be relevant when the audience doesn't know exactly what I'm talking about, which is not the case, which why the audience is 'correcting' me on the numbers and the position by typing over 200 plus words trying to make himself sound superior in an argument. I really don't care if he was 1,000,000 38 or 58 and arguing over it is utterly infantile, when you know clearly who I was referring to and what I was talking about. Cut the drama.

What part of momentum don't you understand? What part of even Stev Young and Trent Dilfer originally arguing FACE GUARDING and HOLDING do you not understand? Even these two guys knew it wasn't 'bear-hugging' like our above poster contend. And what part of 16 and 17 seconds on the above video, which clearly shows that Kuechly actually PULLED away from Gronk do you not understand? And what part of slow-motion making it a lot worse than you think do you not understanding? And what part of Kuechly being in front of the route of Gronk do you not understand that even if Kuechly didn't even breathe on his face cause he was two feet slow, Gronk would stll have to go through Kuechly do you not undersand, followed by 38 to even get to the ball considering Kuechly had the inside angle? Sorry, no matter which way you spin it, Gonk gave up. There was double-coverage. That's why Gronk sulked...

Gronk's route was a post route that Brady underthrew and Gronk would have to reverse momentum to even come back... He would then have to proceed through two defenders to get to the ball after shifting his momentum. And that still predicates that he could come back on a straight post to a ball underthrown by like 5 feet.

Yeah, small chance... uncatchable.. no PI... the end.. Panthers won..

Why bring up face guarding and what Steve Young or Trent Dilfer said? I never referenced them.

I understand momentum just fine. That is why I said I don't think it was a guarantee that Gronk would catch the ball if there was no interference. It was still going to be a tough attempt to catch the ball no matter, but the interference took away any chance Gronk had at it and that is and always should be a penalty.

Cut the drama? Learn a players number and position. You sound as if you are making stuff up already and then you cite the wrong player. That doesn't strengthen your already weak argument. All you have really done is scream about Brady and Pats lovers, which I am neither.

 

[Rogah]

Sorry, this isn't an English course... Being a spelling ***** and calling the grammar police is the sign of a losing argument, especially on the internet. How about I type proper English, and you take into account actual laws of physics?

I am not a spelling or grammar **** but I honestly have no clue what "Sorry, but INT is if the ball is catchable.. that wasn't" means.

Anyways, since you're so interested in talking about the laws of physics, here is ESPN SportsScience giving proof positive that the ball was 100% catchable if Kuechly isn't bear hugging Gronkowski out the back of the end zone.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...3554/sports-science-examines-game-ending-call

Ain't physics (and the people who, unlike you, really understand physics) a *****?

 

[khiladi]

Why bring up face guarding and what Steve Young or Trent Dilfer said? I never referenced them.

I understand momentum just fine. That is why I said I don't think it was a guarantee that Gronk would catch the ball if there was no interference. It was still going to be a tough attempt to catch the ball no matter, but the interference took away any chance Gronk had at it and that is and always should be a penalty.

Cut the drama? Learn a players number and position. You sound as if you are making stuff up already and then you cite the wrong player. That doesn't strengthen your already weak argument. All you have really done is scream about Brady and Pats lovers, which I am neither.

1. Why bring up Steve Young and Trent Dilfer when the acknowledged face-guarding, as opposed to holding? BTW, I brought up this issue before you inserted yourself in the conversation, meaning it was already there.

2. Again, I know it's hard, but PI is ruled when a ball is catcheable. So I guess everything should potentially be catcheable, unless the ball sails 5oo feet over the offensive players head.

3. As far as citing the wrong plyer, please.. I just didn't care enough to do a forensci study on the number andhis position. You knew what I was talkin about, so cut the nonsensue like I'm making stuff up...