Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call

SaintSproles · 11-19-2013, 01:19 PM

Actually the Pats have been involved in 3 controversial plays to end games.

The Jets game had that penalty on the missed FG by the Jets allowing them to kick it again and win in OT.

Rugby Saint II · 11-19-2013, 01:25 PM

It's history and moot at this point.

SloMotion · 11-19-2013, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by RaginCajun83

Ball was in the air so it's PI

Yeah, and I agree with the "uncatchable" argument (somewhat) that prompted the stripes to reverse the call, but I had NE in this one,

.

TheOak · 11-19-2013, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by pinch

By the rule book you're probably right, but I like the non-call because the ball wasn't catchable and like you said Gronk never made a movement toward the ball. That was on Gronk for not being dramatic enough.

My point is remove the subjective PI and you still have two penalties. Holding and illegal contact. Ever seen those calls on the line during a pass play? Same rules they were just closer to the point of reception. What Gronk did or didn't do doesn't negate those penalties. You can't wrap a receiver period. If you could we would just wrap them on the snap and be done with it.

jnormand · 11-19-2013, 02:06 PM

I agree no PI, but illegal contact at least.

Did you hear Brady screaming at the ref after the game? He was screaming and throwing a huge fit. I understand that he was fired up but I've seen him throw too many tantrums for it not to be annoying.

lee909 · 11-19-2013, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Mardigras9

Karma?

Not really Karma for us though, we get screwed twice by a undeserved loss and a division rivsl winning

SloMotion · 11-19-2013, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by TheOak

My point is remove the subjective PI and you still have two penalties. Holding and illegal contact. Ever seen those calls on the line during a pass play? Same rules they were just closer to the point of reception. What Gronk did or didn't do doesn't negate those penalties. You can't wrap a receiver period. If you could we would just wrap them on the snap and be done with it.

That's where I'm having a problem with the call/non-call ... I heard something about the PI being reversed because the interception was an invalidating action and the ball was uncatchable, et... and I'll accept that, but the way Kuechly was wrapping Gronk up woulda' been criminal in a civilian court, so they're shoulda' been some kind of call, IMO.

And what about the point that the ball was in the air, so it couldn't be anything but PI, which has already been negated by the interception?

It's a very confusing call to me, as these kind usually are.

SaintSproles · 11-19-2013, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by jnormand

I agree no PI, but illegal contact at least.

Did you hear Brady screaming at the ref after the game? He was screaming and throwing a huge fit. I understand that he was fired up but I've seen him throw too many tantrums for it not to be annoying.

The problem with illegal contact (i.e., defensive holding) is that it must occur before the pass is in the air. The illegal contact came after the ball is released. So that penalty is off the table.

The PI is the real question mark here. I just think Gronk needed to fight through the bear hug and he didn't sell it. It cost them the penalty and a chance to win the game.

saintsfan403 · 11-19-2013, 04:07 PM

The biggest thing for me is that it wasn't the ref who threw the flag who reversed it, it was that country bumpkin Clete Blakeman who picked up the flag and gave no real explanation for the non-call...you just can't get away with holding of that magnitude on an endzone play.

saintsfan403 · 11-19-2013, 04:22 PM

Tom Brady confronts officials after controversial final play - YouTube

From this it looks like Gronk plants his right foot as if he is gonna break on the ball...clearly he is obstructed by Kuechly though. I think this one came straight from vegas.

11-19-2013, 01:19 PM	#21
SaintSproles Site Donor Drew Brees GOAT Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 342 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Actually the Pats have been involved in 3 controversial plays to end games. The Jets game had that penalty on the missed FG by the Jets allowing them to kick it again and win in OT.

11-19-2013, 01:25 PM	#22
Rugby Saint II Bounty Money $$$ Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 5800 Airline Dr. Metairie, LA. Posts: 23,733	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call It's history and moot at this point.

11-19-2013, 01:50 PM	#23
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by RaginCajun83 Ball was in the air so it's PI Yeah, and I agree with the "uncatchable" argument (somewhat) that prompted the stripes to reverse the call, but I had NE in this one, .

11-19-2013, 02:04 PM	#24
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 18,978	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by pinch By the rule book you're probably right, but I like the non-call because the ball wasn't catchable and like you said Gronk never made a movement toward the ball. That was on Gronk for not being dramatic enough. My point is remove the subjective PI and you still have two penalties. Holding and illegal contact. Ever seen those calls on the line during a pass play? Same rules they were just closer to the point of reception. What Gronk did or didn't do doesn't negate those penalties. You can't wrap a receiver period. If you could we would just wrap them on the snap and be done with it.

11-19-2013, 02:06 PM	#25
jnormand 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Free State of Idaho Posts: 5,530	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call I agree no PI, but illegal contact at least. Did you hear Brady screaming at the ref after the game? He was screaming and throwing a huge fit. I understand that he was fired up but I've seen him throw too many tantrums for it not to be annoying.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

11-19-2013, 02:11 PM	#26
lee909 Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Watford England Posts: 8,758 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by Mardigras9 Karma? Not really Karma for us though, we get screwed twice by a undeserved loss and a division rivsl winning

11-19-2013, 03:33 PM	#27
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by TheOak My point is remove the subjective PI and you still have two penalties. Holding and illegal contact. Ever seen those calls on the line during a pass play? Same rules they were just closer to the point of reception. What Gronk did or didn't do doesn't negate those penalties. You can't wrap a receiver period. If you could we would just wrap them on the snap and be done with it. That's where I'm having a problem with the call/non-call ... I heard something about the PI being reversed because the interception was an invalidating action and the ball was uncatchable, et... and I'll accept that, but the way Kuechly was wrapping Gronk up woulda' been criminal in a civilian court, so they're shoulda' been some kind of call, IMO. And what about the point that the ball was in the air, so it couldn't be anything but PI, which has already been negated by the interception? It's a very confusing call to me, as these kind usually are. jlouhill likes this.

11-19-2013, 03:41 PM	#28
SaintSproles Site Donor Drew Brees GOAT Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 342 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by jnormand I agree no PI, but illegal contact at least. Did you hear Brady screaming at the ref after the game? He was screaming and throwing a huge fit. I understand that he was fired up but I've seen him throw too many tantrums for it not to be annoying. The problem with illegal contact (i.e., defensive holding) is that it must occur before the pass is in the air. The illegal contact came after the ball is released. So that penalty is off the table. The PI is the real question mark here. I just think Gronk needed to fight through the bear hug and he didn't sell it. It cost them the penalty and a chance to win the game. SloMotion likes this.

11-19-2013, 04:07 PM	#29
saintsfan403 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: WHO DAT NATION Posts: 2,261	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call The biggest thing for me is that it wasn't the ref who threw the flag who reversed it, it was that country bumpkin Clete Blakeman who picked up the flag and gave no real explanation for the non-call...you just can't get away with holding of that magnitude on an endzone play.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/62070-now-controversy-moves-gronkowski-interference-call.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call	This thread	Refback	11-19-2013 11:34 AM	4
The Latest New Orleans Saints News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	11-19-2013 09:44 AM	2