Panzer ace
Colonel
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,175
Once he Chiefs fell behind it was over.
Nfl 2013 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter sammy719
- Start date
Once he Chiefs fell behind it was over.
Warrior
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 15,419
Awesome way for the Patriots/Panthers game to end tonight; so I guess you can mug/tackle/interfere with a guy as long as the ball is not catchable then.
What a @#$%%^& joke of a call in a joke of a league.
Actually, the back judge got it right, the head referee overturned it and said no call and picked up the flag.
I'm going to start to follow pro wrestling instead of the NFL; it also is fixed, but at least I know that going in.
And Cam Newton is BEYOND ANNOYING. Kept three drives alive by scrambling on third down.
Sorry, I can't stand a run first, throw second joke of a QB in the NFL.
What a @#$%%^& joke of a call in a joke of a league.
Actually, the back judge got it right, the head referee overturned it and said no call and picked up the flag.
I'm going to start to follow pro wrestling instead of the NFL; it also is fixed, but at least I know that going in.
And Cam Newton is BEYOND ANNOYING. Kept three drives alive by scrambling on third down.
Sorry, I can't stand a run first, throw second joke of a QB in the NFL.
mikemiller1955
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 17,496
better get used to it...that looks like the future of the NFL...
by the way...Cam was 19/28 with 3 passing TD's...his QB rating was 125...Brady's was 91...
the option to run is a huge weapon...Brady used to be able to run some...
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,491
I'm not sure what your issue is with Cam Newton, other than he beat the Patriots. He's a big guy, hard to bring down. Some of his escape moves remind me of Randall Cunningham; he used to bedevil the Giants to no end.
As far as the flag, I think it was the right call because even had he not been interfered with, he would not have caught the ball as his momentum was taking him to the back of the end zone. I believe cathability is the rule.
Speaking of the Giants, they're back (temporarily). They haven't proven they can beat a good team although I thought they played better on Sunday than I've seen all year.
As far as the flag, I think it was the right call because even had he not been interfered with, he would not have caught the ball as his momentum was taking him to the back of the end zone. I believe cathability is the rule.
Speaking of the Giants, they're back (temporarily). They haven't proven they can beat a good team although I thought they played better on Sunday than I've seen all year.
mikemiller1955
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 17,496
I watch a lot of football...and I have been conditioned to believe this was pass interference from everything I have seen in the past...
if not pass interference...then holding...
I agree the ball was uncatchable from the receiver's postion when it was intercepted...I understand it was intercepted 3-4 yards in front of him...
but from what I have observed in enforcement of this rule...is that it doesn't matter where the ball was thrown...unless it was in the 3rd row of seats...this ball was thrown in the field of play...
I took Carolina -2 1/2...I'm glad they picked the flag up...but I think it was the wrong call...
I saw ESPN bring out their "in-house" referee and heard his comments...he defended the call...saying it was intercepted before it reached the receiver...saying it was uncatchable...
I say it was a bad call...it should have been pass interference and 1st and goal from the 1 yard line...
or a 5 yard holding call with one offensive play left and no time on the clock...
bad calls happen all the time...it's part of the game...it was a tough break for NE...that one was strong...
Combat
Brigadier General
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,596
Be thankful you don't have to deal with the PAC 12 refs. I have to watch these guys call games every weekend. Here is one of my favorites from last week:
http://collegespun.com/pac-12/usc/v...te-the-ball-clearly-being-short-of-the-chains
That is inexcusable. Must have been a payoff. Fire 'em all. -- Al
Panzer ace
Colonel
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,175
Bad call last night, plain and simple.
On the other side of it I am pretty sick of all of the pass interference calls. It will not be long before I see/hear this one:
Ref: "Pass interference. The corner back looked at the receiver funny. First down from the spot of the foul!"
On the other side of it I am pretty sick of all of the pass interference calls. It will not be long before I see/hear this one:
Ref: "Pass interference. The corner back looked at the receiver funny. First down from the spot of the foul!"
Warrior
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 15,419
"I'm not sure what your issue is with Cam Newton".........................
He's annoying, let's start there.
And the whole team is a bunch of big mouths who run their mouths constantly, no place in the game for baiting your opponent by flapping your gums. I forgot how annoying Carolina is since we waxed them in the Super Bowl, Smith is a big mouth, wish someone would take his head off going across the middle to shut him up.
"As far as the flag, I think it was the right call because even had he not been interfered with, he would not have caught the ball as his momentum was taking him to the back of the end zone. I believe cathability is the rule"......................
No, catchability has nothing to do with it. Earlier in the game they called a penalty on the Panthers as a Patriots receiver was getting mugged on the opposite side of the field, hands to the face and holding; the ball wasn't thrown to him, but call was made.
Gronk was mugged in the end zone, the ball was in the air at the time, who's to say were he not mugged he couldn't have broken off his pattern and got to the ball.
The Patriots have three losses this year, one on a chicken **** call that went against them, one on a call that was reversed, one because their entire offense was out vs the sad sack Bungles.
Wax Frankenforehead and the Donkos next week and get that #2 seed and go from there, get the offense healthy, I like our chances if that happens.
He's annoying, let's start there.
And the whole team is a bunch of big mouths who run their mouths constantly, no place in the game for baiting your opponent by flapping your gums. I forgot how annoying Carolina is since we waxed them in the Super Bowl, Smith is a big mouth, wish someone would take his head off going across the middle to shut him up.
"As far as the flag, I think it was the right call because even had he not been interfered with, he would not have caught the ball as his momentum was taking him to the back of the end zone. I believe cathability is the rule"......................
No, catchability has nothing to do with it. Earlier in the game they called a penalty on the Panthers as a Patriots receiver was getting mugged on the opposite side of the field, hands to the face and holding; the ball wasn't thrown to him, but call was made.
Gronk was mugged in the end zone, the ball was in the air at the time, who's to say were he not mugged he couldn't have broken off his pattern and got to the ball.
The Patriots have three losses this year, one on a chicken **** call that went against them, one on a call that was reversed, one because their entire offense was out vs the sad sack Bungles.
Wax Frankenforehead and the Donkos next week and get that #2 seed and go from there, get the offense healthy, I like our chances if that happens.
Warrior
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 15,419
Gronk should have done what one of the Carolina players did to sell PI; flail around like a girl and throw his hands in the air and his head back trying to sell it.
What a farce.
I basically stopped watching the NBA after the fourth quarter of game 7 vs the Lakers back in 2010, I'm just about there with the NFL.
It's a mess and a terrible product at this point, I can find better things to do with my time on a Sunday afternoon.
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,491
The ball was badly underthrown; the defender had to go down to get it. Sorry, but there's no way Gronkowski would have caught it. Holding should have been called but that's it.
As Mike says, Newton will be around a long time but don't worry you won't have to play the Panthers until four years from now, when he might be better than he is and you'll probably be fielding a new QB.
My recollection of that SB was that it was a pretty close game and that the Pats won by a field goal or something like that, not exactly waxing, but, hey, a title is a title.
As Mike says, Newton will be around a long time but don't worry you won't have to play the Panthers until four years from now, when he might be better than he is and you'll probably be fielding a new QB.
My recollection of that SB was that it was a pretty close game and that the Pats won by a field goal or something like that, not exactly waxing, but, hey, a title is a title.
Panzer ace
Colonel
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,175
Would holding have given the Pats the ball at the goal-line or would it have been a 5 yarder?
Warrior
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 15,419
Holding is 5 yards and an automatic first down, not sure if it occurring in the end zone has any impact on if the ball is spotted on the 1.
Warrior
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 15,419
"As Mike says, Newton will be around a long time but don't worry you won't have to play the Panthers until four years from now, when he might be better than he is and you'll probably be fielding a new QB."
He'll be around a long time, pointing towards the crowd, pounding his chest, hoping around like a fool, doing that stupid make pretend basketball shot; unless someone takes his head off on one of his crazy legs Hirsch scrambles.
And yes Brad, four years from now Brady will be gone and maybe the Jets will have a shot at the division, but I wouldn't count on it.
And Rask just stoned some tomato can on the Rangers on a penalty shot.
The first place Bruins.
He'll be around a long time, pointing towards the crowd, pounding his chest, hoping around like a fool, doing that stupid make pretend basketball shot; unless someone takes his head off on one of his crazy legs Hirsch scrambles.
And yes Brad, four years from now Brady will be gone and maybe the Jets will have a shot at the division, but I wouldn't count on it.
And Rask just stoned some tomato can on the Rangers on a penalty shot.
The first place Bruins.
Panzer ace
Colonel
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,175
George:
I wasn't too happy with my Niners losing to the Panthers either. However at least Brady has the rings to quiet everyone down. Newton can do all the dancing and celebrating he wants. Brady can always say, come back and talk when you have a ring.
mikemiller1955
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 17,496
not interested in getting involved in the merits of the Jets/Pats/Brady/Newton discussion...
and not to beat a "dead horse" either...
but this is an interesting point of view from the #2 guy officiating in the NFL...
NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino put his stamp of approval on the referees' decision to pick up a pass interference flag in the end zone on the final play of the New England Patriots' 24-20 loss to the Carolina Panthers on Monday night, saying they used "proper mechanics" to make a "tight judgment call."
The game ended on a throw from Tom Brady to tight end Rob Gronkowski in the back of the end zone that was intercepted as time expired. Gronkowski appeared to have been held by linebacker Luke Kuechly on the play. A flag was thrown, but after a conference with the other officials, referee Clete Blakeman announced there was no penalty on the play. Had the penalty been upheld, the Patriots would have had one untimed play from the 1-yard line to try and score the winning touchdown.
The Rule In Question
Monday night's officials determined there was no chance for tight end Rob Gronkowski to catch the last pass thrown by Tom Brady. Here is the rule in question:
Rule 8, Section 5, Article 3 Permissible Acts
Article 3 Permissible Acts by both teams while the ball is in the air. Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:
(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense.
Blandino drew a key distinction between a defensive player making contact with an opponent and "restricting" him.
"The issue isn't the contact [between Kuechly and Gronkowski], the issue is the restriction and does it occur prior to the ball being touched," Blandino explained Tuesday during his segment on the NFL Network. "At full speed the officials made a tight judgment call and they determined that the restriction occurred just as the ball was being touched [by Panthers safety Robert Lester]. Again, at full speed you can see why they made that call."
Pass interference penalties are not reviewable, which means the officials had to make a judgment call on when the contact Kuechly was making with Gronkowski became "restrictive." In their judgment, Blandino said, they ruled that the "restriction occurred simultaneously with the ball being touched. When you watch it at full speed you can see why they would make that call on the field."
Following the game, Blakeman defended the decision, saying Gronkowski's distance from the ball rendered the pass uncatchable and there was "a determination that, in essence, uncatchability -- that the ball was intercepted at or about the same time the primary contact against the receiver occurred."
Less than 12 hours after the non-call cost his team a shot at winning the game, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was not any more inclined to discuss the play than he was following the contest.
"Whatever the officials think is the only thing that matters," Belichick said Tuesday on a conference call with reporters. "They're the ones that make the calls. It's their explanation and their judgment that we all have to abide by."
Blakeman was followed off the field by an irate Brady, who gave the official an earful but was more measured in his comments at a postgame news conference.
"I wish it wouldn't come down to that," Brady said. "I think there are plenty of plays we could have made. But it did, and they are going to make a call or they are not going to make a call. ... We can play better than that."
Gronkowski was asked if he felt he was held on the play, and he responded, "I've gotta rewatch, but if you saw that, then I would say yeah."
Kuechly said his focus was on Gronkowski and therefore didn't see Brady release the ball.
"Honestly, I didn't see the throw," Kuechly said. "I didn't see where the ball ended up. I just saw his eyes get big and his hands go up. When that happens, the ball is going to him. I didn't see what happened after the play. I just knew there was a flag down, a bunch of people around the refs. They waved it off and the crowd cheered."
Panthers coach Ron Rivera said Tuesday that he is fine with the way the game ended.
"We've been on the other end of those calls too, as well," Rivera said. "As far as I'm concerned, that was the decision -- the decision we live with. No matter how much people want to talk about it and rehash, rehash, it's not going to change."
Rivera acknowledged, however, that he would have felt differently if the Panthers (7-3) were on the other end of a similarly controversial call.
"Without a doubt -- it's human nature," he said. "You want the good things, the right things, things that you believe are correct."
and not to beat a "dead horse" either...
but this is an interesting point of view from the #2 guy officiating in the NFL...
NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino put his stamp of approval on the referees' decision to pick up a pass interference flag in the end zone on the final play of the New England Patriots' 24-20 loss to the Carolina Panthers on Monday night, saying they used "proper mechanics" to make a "tight judgment call."
The game ended on a throw from Tom Brady to tight end Rob Gronkowski in the back of the end zone that was intercepted as time expired. Gronkowski appeared to have been held by linebacker Luke Kuechly on the play. A flag was thrown, but after a conference with the other officials, referee Clete Blakeman announced there was no penalty on the play. Had the penalty been upheld, the Patriots would have had one untimed play from the 1-yard line to try and score the winning touchdown.
The Rule In Question
Monday night's officials determined there was no chance for tight end Rob Gronkowski to catch the last pass thrown by Tom Brady. Here is the rule in question:
Rule 8, Section 5, Article 3 Permissible Acts
Article 3 Permissible Acts by both teams while the ball is in the air. Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:
(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense.
Blandino drew a key distinction between a defensive player making contact with an opponent and "restricting" him.
"The issue isn't the contact [between Kuechly and Gronkowski], the issue is the restriction and does it occur prior to the ball being touched," Blandino explained Tuesday during his segment on the NFL Network. "At full speed the officials made a tight judgment call and they determined that the restriction occurred just as the ball was being touched [by Panthers safety Robert Lester]. Again, at full speed you can see why they made that call."
Pass interference penalties are not reviewable, which means the officials had to make a judgment call on when the contact Kuechly was making with Gronkowski became "restrictive." In their judgment, Blandino said, they ruled that the "restriction occurred simultaneously with the ball being touched. When you watch it at full speed you can see why they would make that call on the field."
Following the game, Blakeman defended the decision, saying Gronkowski's distance from the ball rendered the pass uncatchable and there was "a determination that, in essence, uncatchability -- that the ball was intercepted at or about the same time the primary contact against the receiver occurred."
Less than 12 hours after the non-call cost his team a shot at winning the game, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was not any more inclined to discuss the play than he was following the contest.
"Whatever the officials think is the only thing that matters," Belichick said Tuesday on a conference call with reporters. "They're the ones that make the calls. It's their explanation and their judgment that we all have to abide by."
Blakeman was followed off the field by an irate Brady, who gave the official an earful but was more measured in his comments at a postgame news conference.
"I wish it wouldn't come down to that," Brady said. "I think there are plenty of plays we could have made. But it did, and they are going to make a call or they are not going to make a call. ... We can play better than that."
Gronkowski was asked if he felt he was held on the play, and he responded, "I've gotta rewatch, but if you saw that, then I would say yeah."
Kuechly said his focus was on Gronkowski and therefore didn't see Brady release the ball.
"Honestly, I didn't see the throw," Kuechly said. "I didn't see where the ball ended up. I just saw his eyes get big and his hands go up. When that happens, the ball is going to him. I didn't see what happened after the play. I just knew there was a flag down, a bunch of people around the refs. They waved it off and the crowd cheered."
Panthers coach Ron Rivera said Tuesday that he is fine with the way the game ended.
"We've been on the other end of those calls too, as well," Rivera said. "As far as I'm concerned, that was the decision -- the decision we live with. No matter how much people want to talk about it and rehash, rehash, it's not going to change."
Rivera acknowledged, however, that he would have felt differently if the Panthers (7-3) were on the other end of a similarly controversial call.
"Without a doubt -- it's human nature," he said. "You want the good things, the right things, things that you believe are correct."
mikemiller1955
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 17,496
I kind of admire Belichick's attitude to all this...basically...let's move and and prepare for next week...
"Whatever the officials think is the only thing that matters," Belichick said Tuesday on a conference call with reporters. "They're the ones that make the calls. It's their explanation and their judgment that we all have to abide by."
"Whatever the officials think is the only thing that matters," Belichick said Tuesday on a conference call with reporters. "They're the ones that make the calls. It's their explanation and their judgment that we all have to abide by."