Patriots @ Panthers. Monday Night Game

[khiladi]

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 *****?

It's not hard.. PI is only called if the ball is ruled catcheable.

Further, the fact that you think this link yu provided is scientific is laughable and shows how gullible you must be if your taking this ESPN analysis as in any way adequate. So let us, for the sake of argument, assume their timing which is just laughable to be accurate..

"Amazingly", they forget to take the acceleration of Gronk's 8 foot 3 reach into account, meaning they just take the time to decelerate and stop. Gronk not only has to stop, he has to change his direction and extend his body in the opposite direction to make a play for the ball after slowing down full speed at 16 miles per hour per their claim how many seconds does our "ESPN" Patriot love fest drama say that takes? Oh yeah, they conveniently neglect that fact... I also am assuming that Gronk can't lay out fully, because our resident friendly LB was already in the path of the ball and wasn't even touching him when the ball was released, meaning our buddy Gronk would have to contend not just with 38, but the LB... So even their 8 foot 3 reach is utterly dumb...

The fact that you quoted such a dumb rationalization tells me all I need to know.. BTW, even your ESPN science calls it 'restrictive'.. Love your 'bear hug' claim...

 

[Rogah]

The fact that you quoted such a dumb rationalization tells me all I need to know.. BTW, even your ESPN science calls it 'restrictive'.. Love your 'bear hug' claim...

Hmmmm let's see... on one hand we have ESPN Sport Science.... on the other we have some anonymous yahoo Patriot hater on the internet...... You keep bringing up the LB in the path of the ball. Right there that shows your ignorance because his placement is 100% irrelevant.

Ya I'm going with ESPN Sports Science on that one. Now since you're so obsessed with having the last word and showing us all how you have no clue, have at it........

 

[khiladi]

Hmmmm let's see... on one hand we have ESPN Sport Science.... on the other we have some anonymous yahoo Patriot hater on the internet......

Ya I'm going with ESPN Sports Science on that one. Now since you're so obsessed with having the last word and showing us all how you have no clue, have at it........

Yes, maybe ESPN Sports Science should publish their article for a scholary journal, where it will be peer-reviewed, because it's so powerful in it's argmentation...

I guess ESPN Boston is a place where science is 100% accurate and not just meant to stir the pot in NE territory...

 

[Kevinicus]

Wow...yeah, that was awful science. They should be pretty ashamed about that one. A lot of piss poor assumptions made.

 

[joseephuss]

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...

I never thought you were making stuff up, but when you cite the wrong player it appears that you just didn't pay close enough attention to the details. Those details matter. I disagree that this particular pass was 100% uncatchable. It may only be 1% catchable, but that is still greater than 0% and I think it has to be 0% for them to pick up a flag. There are plenty of instances when it is 0% uncatchable and it doesn't have to sail 500 ft over the players for it to be so. There was a #58 LB in the area coming from the right side of the defense and if he had picked off the pass or knocked it down at the 2 or 3 yard line then I would say that it was 0% uncatchable. Different situation.

Even if pass interference was called and the Pats got the ball at the 1 yard line there was no guarantee they convert a TD and win. Winning and losing didn't matter to me. The two teams in question didn't matter to me. The time of the game at which it occurred didn't matter to me. I just want the correct calls to be made. This was the wrong call. And the excuses being made to support it are more annoying than the call being wrong.

 

[Rogah]

Winning and losing didn't matter to me.

I don't understand why I seem to be the only one in this forum who was rooting for the Patriots. Am I the only one who realizes that the Panthers and the Cowboys are both fighting for Wild Card positioning right now and we would be better off had they lost?

 

[joseephuss]

I don't understand why I seem to be the only one in this forum who was rooting for the Patriots. Am I the only one who realizes that the Panthers and the Cowboys are both fighting for Wild Card positioning right now and we would be better off had they lost?

With respect to the call I didn't care who won or lost. If it had been the Panthers on offense and didn't get the call I would feel the same way. With respect to the Cowboys, yes I would have preferred that the Panthers lost. I just don't let that sway my opinion on whether I thought it was a good or bad call.

 

[visionary]

I don't understand why I seem to be the only one in this forum who was rooting for the Patriots. Am I the only one who realizes that the Panthers and the Cowboys are both fighting for Wild Card positioning right now and we would be better off had they lost?

my apologies but if you think the cowboys are fighting for anything after watching the saints game, you are mistaken

 

[khiladi]

Apologies for the harsh tone in this thread, that could be construed as 'personal mocking'.

 

[Idgit]

I don't understand why I seem to be the only one in this forum who was rooting for the Patriots. Am I the only one who realizes that the Panthers and the Cowboys are both fighting for Wild Card positioning right now and we would be better off had they lost?

I suppose you're right, but I have a hard time thinking WC positioning is going to help us much if we can't win the division outright. It's hardly even a consideration for me.

I have a harder time rooting for the Pats for any reason, whatsoever. I don't even hate them so much as an organization--have a ton of respect for them, actually--but I don't have it in myself to root for them against any but the teams I really hate (Niners, Steelers, Commanders, Eagles, Giants).

 

[Rogah]

my apologies but if you think the cowboys are fighting for anything after watching the saints game, you are mistaken

Yeah, no team has ever been blown out and then bounced back to make the playoffs. Ever. In the history of the NFL. It's never happened.