Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

OT: NFL/NHL thread

i estimate that absolutely noone gives a damn about the NHL, so by folding that thread into this one, we won’t distract from what this thread is really about: boner pills, blood doping (is it low t?), and…jesus christ did mike vick just throw another ####### interception?

clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: November 06, 2012 at 12:03 AM | 7987 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nfl, nhl

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 43 of 80 pages ‹ First  < 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 >  Last ›
   4201. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: October 21, 2013 at 01:37 AM (#4579290)
I think he should throw three passes to the end zone there, and make sure he doesn't take a sack and doesn't throw a pass that could result in anything other a TD. Taking a sack was the real problem, and before that he threw a pass that, if completed, would have resulted in being at about the 5 and a bunch of time running off the clock.
   4202. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 22, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4580321)
From ESPN:

The New York Jets were aware of the New England Patriots' previous use of the illegal pushing technique on field goals, and they made sure Sunday's game officials knew it, too.

In fact, the Jets' sideline alerted the officiating crew during the game to watch out for it, a person familiar with the situation told ESPN.com Monday.

Sure enough, the Patriots were busted in overtime, and it cost them the game.


It looks like Belichik got played here big time by the Jets. And note that the Jets' special teams coach (Westhoff), per Mike Peirera, had been pushing for the rule change for some time.

Belichik really looks to be the fool here.

And I'll be damned if I can figure out what the benefit of illegal pushing is there anyway. Certainly the risk/reward makes it a no brainer not to do something silly there.
   4203. smileyy Posted: November 03, 2013 at 07:33 PM (#4593146)
So this was a bad week to start Oakland's Pass Defense in fantasy football?
   4204. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 03, 2013 at 08:23 PM (#4593160)
I'm glad the NFL is cracking down on gently pushing one's teammate in the back.
   4205. zenbitz Posted: November 03, 2013 at 09:14 PM (#4593182)
Man Seattle is getting lucky these days.
   4206. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: November 03, 2013 at 11:23 PM (#4593232)
So this was a bad week to start Oakland's Pass Defense in fantasy football?


Oh yes it was. They undid all the goodness I got out of Chris Johnson and Jimmy Graham.
   4207. zenbitz Posted: November 04, 2013 at 12:47 AM (#4593245)
Boy big day for 1st half upsets and 2nd half comebacks by the big favorites. Well, except for New Orleans.
   4208. Tripon Posted: November 04, 2013 at 01:09 AM (#4593248)
The Miami Dolphins have suspended starting guard Richie Incognito for conduct detrimental to the team.

Incognito was being reviewed by the Dolphins, the NFL and the NFLPA for harassment of teammate Jonathan Martin, who left the team last week following a lunchroom incident.

"The Miami Dolphins have suspended Richie Incognito for conduct detrimental to the team," the Dolphins said in a statement. "We believe in maintaining a culture of respect for one another and as a result we believe this decision is in the best interest of the organization at this time. As we noted earlier, we reached out to the NFL to conduct an objective and thorough review. We will continue to work with the league on this matter."

Incognito started all eight games for the Dolphins (4-4) this year. He will be an unrestricted free agent after the season.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9924206/miami-dolphins-suspend-richie-incognito-indefinitely-connection-jonathan-martin-incident


Evidence of Incognito sending threatening and racially charged texts. The league says its a hate crime now.
Crazy.
http://msn.foxsports.com/watch/fox-sports-live/video?vid=50a24a46-662c-4e33-9f2f-0aa34a216699
   4209. SteveF Posted: November 04, 2013 at 01:43 AM (#4593259)
I wonder if there will be new rules against hazing as a result of this mess. There probably should be.
   4210. stanmvp48 Posted: November 04, 2013 at 08:11 AM (#4593273)
Should Houston have heaved a Hail Mary into the end zone to win, rather than trying a low percentage FG to tie?

Should San Diego have gone for the win on the one yard line at the end of regulation?
   4211. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 04, 2013 at 09:28 AM (#4593293)
incognito sounds like a complete jack8ss
   4212. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 04, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4593333)
Should San Diego have gone for the win on the one yard line at the end of regulation?

Because they had been soooo successful on the 3 previous plays? :)
   4213. Kurt Posted: November 04, 2013 at 10:51 AM (#4593344)
Should San Diego have gone for the win on the one yard line at the end of regulation?


Yes, absolutely. They were six inches away.
   4214. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: November 04, 2013 at 11:22 AM (#4593370)
I didn't think the Eagles had a chance in hell of winning yesterday, let alone win by 29 points. The first THREE Facebook posts I saw celebrating the Eagles, I all thought were sarcastic. Good heavens.

Hooray for Foles! Trade him to the Cardinals!
   4215. zenbitz Posted: November 04, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4593498)
@4210 I give the Texans ca. 25% to win by attempting the fieldgoal. Maybe 20% given they are the worse team and with a pretty bad FG kicker (I assume he's cut by tomorrow). They were at home though. I doubt hail mary's have anything more than 5% success... even if you have Andrew Johnson.

As for San Diego... not including any attempts on Sunday, the Chargers were 69% on power successes and Washington a terrible 74% allowed (24th in the league). League average is 62%. So barring known injuries, yeah, they probably should have just run the ball up the gut. I think the Chargers were on the road too.

Coaches (both NFL and NCAA) will almost always go for the tie unless they are huge underdogs or otherwise bottom feeders. The thing is, if the coach makes a call and they don't get it, it's his decision that decided the game, while if they go to overtime and lose then it's the players/team that failed.
   4216. DA Baracus Posted: November 04, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4593501)
Hooray for Foles! Trade him to the Cardinals!


They don't need him. Their "quarterback room is as strong as any in the National Football League."
   4217. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: November 04, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4593518)
After that performance yesterday, Foles is now the starter for good. The only way Vick is starting another game for Philly is if Foles gets hurt.

Some bad, stupidly run team will probably sign Vick to a small one year contract next year, but the only way he's ever winning a Super Bowl championship is if he's lucky enough to be signed as a backup on a really good team.
   4218. Kurt Posted: November 04, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4593625)
   4219. stanmvp48 Posted: November 04, 2013 at 04:39 PM (#4593702)
Just thinking out lout but my gut feeling on the field goal was more like 15%. Even the one he made fluttered and wobbled through. And probably less than 50% of winning in OT, given the way the game was going. I wonder about the percentages of Hail Marys. As you say, Johnson is capable of winning a jump ball.

No coach would have done it; surely, not an acting coach. I thought the punt at 2:03 was a bad play as well.
   4220. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 04, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4593703)
As for San Diego... not including any attempts on Sunday, the Chargers were 69% on power successes and Washington a terrible 74% allowed (24th in the league). League average is 62%. So barring known injuries, yeah, they probably should have just run the ball up the gut. I think the Chargers were on the road too.

They didn't even really run it up the gut on any of the first three downs. On first down they did run up the middle, but it was off a shotgun formation and the RB they used is approximately Dustin Pedroia height. Second and third down were both passes.
   4221. nick swisher hygiene Posted: November 04, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4593774)
4218--holy ####. and note

Incognito, who has been a part of Miami's six-player leadership council
   4222. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 04, 2013 at 07:04 PM (#4593822)
Should Houston have heaved a Hail Mary into the end zone to win, rather than trying a low percentage FG to tie?


5 seconds left. I wanted them to run one more play and get out of bounds.

A comment on timeouts: One team yesterday (I forget which) used all three of its timeouts in the first quarter. I think it was the Saints. Thus, they were out of challenges.

if I were the head coach I would literally never use my timeouts outside of 3 minutes to go in the game, or clock ticking down in the first half. The 5 yard penalty for delay of game is not worth (a) being out of challenges in the first/second half, or (b) being unable to stop the clock at the end.
   4223. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: November 04, 2013 at 08:53 PM (#4593883)
Good for Martin. Hopefully this is a turning point of sorts for the way things are in an NFL locker room. I have to think there are similar dynamics on other rosters.

if I were the head coach I would literally never use my timeouts outside of 3 minutes to go in the game, or clock ticking down in the first half. The 5 yard penalty for delay of game is not worth (a) being out of challenges in the first/second half, or (b) being unable to stop the clock at the end.


I feel the use of timeouts is a good shorthand way to figure out who the good coaches and who the bad coaches are. Belichik is really good with time outs. An unprepared team is not.
   4224. zenbitz Posted: November 04, 2013 at 09:40 PM (#4593899)
Jim harbaugh is pretty miserable with time outs, challenges, and delay of games. Some of that is on his qbs (both smith and ck), but apparently they have trouble getting plays in on time.
   4225. J. Sosa Posted: November 05, 2013 at 12:02 AM (#4593951)
Some of the reactions from NFL personnel people regarding Incognito are bad even if predictable. The notion that Martin should have handled it man to man is... Something. According to a SI writer one personnel guy said that Incognito knew which player to pick on and make racist comments to. Martin rather than Pouncey. I read that thinking "you mean the guy that wore a "Free Hernandez" hat and got subpoenaed for Hernandez's murder trial? That Pouncey?” Martin should have handled it like THAT guy?"

Some of the other quoted people seem to think Martin was being histrionic about his life being threatened. Well... If one guy on your O line was too dirty for Nebraska and Oregon and is hated around the league and another is being asked questions about an execution style murder, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that probably crosses my own personal threshold of people I suspect I might want to avoid as much as possible.
   4226. Tripon Posted: November 07, 2013 at 10:42 PM (#4596133)
The Dolphins as a team and organization just makes me shake my head.
   4227. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: November 07, 2013 at 10:44 PM (#4596136)
Martin's reps release a statement:

Jonathan Martin’s toughness is not at issue. Jonathan has started every game with the Miami Dolphins since he was drafted in 2012. At Stanford, he was the anchor for Jim Harbaugh’s “smash mouth” brand of football and he protected Andrew Luck’s blind side.

The issue is Jonathan’s treatment by his teammates. Jonathan endured harassment that went far beyond the traditional locker room hazing. For the entire season-and-a-half that he was with the Dolphins, he attempted to befriend the same teammates who subjected him to the abuse with the hope that doing so would end the harassment. This is a textbook reaction of victims of bullying. Despite these efforts, the taunting continued. Beyond the well-publicized voice mail with its racial epithet, Jonathan endured a malicious physical attack on him by a teammate, and daily vulgar comments such as the quote at the bottom. These facts are not in dispute.

Eventually, Jonathan made a difficult choice. Despite his love for football, Jonathan left the Dolphins. Jonathan looks forward to getting back to playing football. In the meantime, he will cooperate fully with the NFL investigation.

Quote from teammate: “We are going to run train on your sister. . . . She loves me. I am going to f–k her without a condom and c– in her c—.”
   4228. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2013 at 01:14 AM (#4596197)
One aspect of this is the way the head coaches treat "voluntary" practices as essentially mandatory. That's apparently one reason why they were upset with Martin and needed Incognito to "toughen him up."

It's kind of like in MLB spring training, where there is a voluntary reporting date and a mandatory one, and whenever a player doesn't show up before the voluntary reporting date the press writes that he is "late to camp."

But yeah, hopefully this Martin episode blows the lid off of the ridiculousness of these NFL programs.
   4229. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 08, 2013 at 02:19 AM (#4596214)
I love this piece on Grantland about the NFL culture.
   4230. a fatty cow that need two seats (cough, cough) Posted: November 08, 2013 at 08:54 AM (#4596233)
are there any studies to confirm the ####### stupidity of the 4th down fade?
   4231. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: November 11, 2013 at 09:22 AM (#4597805)
so the eagles now have more wins than last year.
nick foles has a 16/0 TD/INT ratio.
the defense has held opponents to 21 or fewer points in each of the last 6 games (that only happened 4 times all of last year)


i'm not gonna say that they should be 9-1, but weeks 2 and 3 should have been schedule wins (SD coming to philly for a 1PM game after playing on monday the previous week; and KC coming to philly for a thursday game) and if they didn't have to pull their starting QB in both week 7 and week 8, those games should have been wins, too.

it doesn't help that they had an entirely new coaching staff and they've kind of been playing quarterback roulette since the preseason and they haven't won a home game for more than a calendar year, but other than that, there's a lot to like about where this team is going.
   4232. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: November 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4597861)
and looking forward to the offseason right now, i'm thinking i'd sell out in both free agency and the draft to build up the defense. i'll be shocked if jairus byrd isn't an eagle, but beyond him, i'd go after brian orakpo in free agency, and then in the draft, i'd target CB/OLB in rounds 1 and 2 and then go BPA after that. ideally, you'd go into next season with a defense that looks something like:

cox - logan - thornton
barwin - ryans - kendricks - orakpo
fletcher - byrd - wolff - purifoy

if you can make this happen, you're adding 2 playmaking veterans that are still pretty young to a defense that's already solid and still getting better.

and then on offense, just let kelly coach up whatever players show up for camp. you already have jackson and mccoy; you have mathis, kelce and lane johnson. foles will be in his 3rd year. if you can get something from brown, celek, ertz, casey, cooper and avant, that just makes you all the more dangerous.


if i'm kelly, the biggest thing i'd be weary of is spending too many resources on offensive skill position players. having playmakers is great, but you win in the trenches and on defense, and the worst thing you could do as an organization is forget that and wind up millening yourself.
   4233. stanmvp48 Posted: November 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4600643)
Tennessee kicked a field goal to cut a six point lead to three early in the fourth quarter (4th and 10). Then they punted on 4th and one from the 29. In neither case was there a word from the broadcasters suggesting that the decision could have been otherwise, or even that a decision was being made.
   4234. Kurt Posted: November 15, 2013 at 01:35 PM (#4600757)
History tells us that NFL coaches would have kicked the field goal, and then punted, about 99.999% of the time. Hard to fault the announcers for treating the decisions as routine when they were.
   4235. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 15, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4600759)
Tennessee kicked a field goal to cut a six point lead to three early in the fourth quarter (4th and 10).


That seems like a perfectly sensible decision to me. The other one much less so.

   4236. Kurt Posted: November 15, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4600819)
That seems like a perfectly sensible decision to me. The other one much less so.


Punting on 4th and 1 from your own 29 with eight minutes left in a game you're losing by three doesn't seem sensible to you? It does to me.
   4237. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 15, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4600832)


Punting on 4th and 1 from your own 29 with eight minutes left in a game you're losing by three doesn't seem sensible to you? It does to me.


It's not absurd or anything, but I think most 4th and 1s when you're trailing late are go-for-it situations.

I just can't get behind the idea of going for it on 4th and 10 when you've got a very makeable field goal that will help you cut your deficit.

   4238. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 15, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4600837)
So what's the early verdict on Chip Kelly's fast-paced offense? Is he still doing it? Has it been shown to work thus far?
   4239. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: November 15, 2013 at 04:21 PM (#4600890)
So what's the early verdict on Chip Kelly's fast-paced offense? Is he still doing it? Has it been shown to work thus far?
lesean mccoy leads in the NFL in rushing yards and yards from scrimmage (rushing + receiving) while being top 5 in yards per carry.
desean jackson is 3rd in the NFL in receiving yards.
nick foles has a 16:0 TD:INT ratio.

if you remove the two games where matt barkley came in as an injury replacement at QB, the eagles are averaging 30 points per game, with a high of 49 against oakland and a low of 16 against kansas city.

basically, they've been about as good as you can be when your 1st string QB is in the bottom half of NFL starters, your backup QB starts 4 of 10 games and your 3rd string rookie QB has attempted 49 passes.
   4240. Kurt Posted: November 17, 2013 at 11:36 PM (#4601672)
The roughing call at the end of Saints/Niners was horrible, and decided the game.
   4241. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 17, 2013 at 11:42 PM (#4601674)
One of the game today featured a fake FG. Remembering... It was Jim Schwarz who called it. I certainly don't mind doing something unconventional and that will likely subject the coach to criticism, but is a fake FG really a productive use of the down? I would be shocked if a straight up 4th down conversion attempt is not more successful than the fake FG.
   4242. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: November 18, 2013 at 12:12 AM (#4601681)
Oh how I hate that punt by KC.
   4243. stanmvp48 Posted: November 18, 2013 at 12:28 AM (#4601684)
That and the FG on the one yard line earlier. In neither case was there a word from the broadcasters suggesting that the decision could have been otherwise, or even that a decision was being made. They also haven't mentioned if Julius Thomas has returned to the game. I don't think he has; but it seems like useful information.
   4244. stanmvp48 Posted: November 18, 2013 at 12:56 AM (#4601696)
I would not have passed if I were Denver. 40 seconds
   4245. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 18, 2013 at 01:24 AM (#4601700)
The Denver-Chiefs game couldn't have been more boring the last 6 minutes as Denver played the whole "run out the clock" game. I would rather see the clock stop if you don't go 5 yards or something, than see this boring run out the clock nonsense.
   4246. hokieneer Posted: November 18, 2013 at 01:42 AM (#4601705)
The fg at the 1 was the biggest mistake that kc made. You can't do that on the road against this denver offense.

I know its hard to get pressure on Peyton, but KC was pathetic. Denver's o-line was the differencein the game. It might be a different game in Arrowhead with crowd noise.
   4247. smileyy Posted: November 18, 2013 at 02:02 AM (#4601707)
lesean mccoy leads in the NFL in rushing yards and yards from scrimmage (rushing + receiving) while being top 5 in yards per carry.
desean jackson is 3rd in the NFL in receiving yards.
nicksean foles has a 16:0 TD:INT ratio.


fixed that for you(sean)
   4248. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: November 19, 2013 at 12:41 AM (#4602105)
Why does ESPN have ex-referees on staff to analyze the rules/officiating if all they're going to do is defend awful officiating? I could reflexively defend every decision every ref makes if they want.
   4249. stanmvp48 Posted: November 19, 2013 at 12:49 AM (#4602106)
I am glad NE lost, but if that isn't a penalty, nothing is. What was the DB thinking?
   4250. stanmvp48 Posted: November 19, 2013 at 12:53 AM (#4602107)
Jerry Austin is on ESPN explaining it, again.
   4251. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 19, 2013 at 12:56 AM (#4602108)
I don't see how that's a bad call. Unless Gronk is capable of defying the laws of physics, the ball was the very definition of uncatchable. The DB cut in front of him to make an INT. Even if Gronkowski was able to stop and double back, his momentum made it physically impossible for him to get anywhere near the DB who made the pick.

Weird, but it looked to me like it was absolutely the right call.

Now, the holding penalty on NE when Olsen effectively hooked the arm of the NE DB is another matter...
   4252. Howie Menckel Posted: November 19, 2013 at 12:58 AM (#4602110)
I have less than zero interest in either of those teams, but I can't imagine the contortions required for that WR to catch that ball even without the "lack of assistance" from that rival.

Is that WR some sort of superhero?
If the rule is if he could have gotten there otherwise, then no.
   4253. SteveF Posted: November 19, 2013 at 01:04 AM (#4602112)
Honestly, you have to look at pass interference penalties as simply acts of god if you want to maintain sanity while watching NFL games. Think of them as happening at random, even though it isn't quite that bad and it won't bother you as much.

As for national announcers reflexively defending officiating, that's been going on forever in every sport on every network. Any color guy that feels the need to say 'That's a good call' should reconsider and say nothing at all. The national guys are almost as bad at defending officiating (in every sport) as the local guys are at being homers.

I have no opinion on the actual call at the end of this particular game. I didn't bother to watch the replay.
   4254. stanmvp48 Posted: November 19, 2013 at 01:06 AM (#4602114)
The contact started at roughly the point the ball ended up, as I saw it.
   4255. stanmvp48 Posted: November 19, 2013 at 01:06 AM (#4602115)
The contact started at roughly the point the ball ended up, as I saw it.
   4256. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 19, 2013 at 01:16 AM (#4602120)
The contact started at roughly the point the ball ended up, as I saw it.


Perhaps, but I don't see it making any difference. There's simply no way that Gronkowski could have been in the same place as the defender when the ball was caught.

If you ask the question, was that a catchable ball?, the answer is no. It's not for the same reason the catchable ball standard is typically applied, but if the ball is never going to get to the receiver, that's as certain as you can be.

   4257. PeteF3 Posted: November 19, 2013 at 01:29 AM (#4602122)
As for national announcers reflexively defending officiating, that's been going on forever in every sport on every network. Any color guy that feels the need to say 'That's a good call' should reconsider and say nothing at all. The national guys are almost as bad at defending officiating (in every sport) as the local guys are at being homers.


I have to disagree with this case in particular. Tirico and Gruden piss and moan about calls (or non-calls) more than any football broadcast team I have ever heard.

Gerry Austin said it wasn't a foul, Mike Pereira thought it was close but that if they threw the flag they should have stuck with that.
   4258. stanmvp48 Posted: November 19, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4602165)
There was a pass interference call earlier in the drive on a ball that was much more obviously uncatchable than the last one.
   4259. Nasty Nate Posted: November 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4602244)
There was a pass interference call earlier in the drive on a ball that was much more obviously uncatchable than the last one.


I feel like there are lots of PI calls every week in the NFL which are as or more "uncatchable."
   4260. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4602254)
I don't see how that's a bad call. Unless Gronk is capable of defying the laws of physics, the ball was the very definition of uncatchable. The DB cut in front of him to make an INT. Even if Gronkowski was able to stop and double back, his momentum made it physically impossible for him to get anywhere near the DB who made the pick.


I see it as a bad call because the contact started early and prevented him from having any shot at all at it.

Also, SoSH, I'm not sure you're applying the rule right. "Uncatchable," as far as I always understood, is an equation that only the ball and the receiver are a part of. It's basically, "could the receiver have caught this ball if nobody else were on the field?" Thus, a ball thrown 30 feet over his head is "uncatchable." But this is the first time I have ever heard it argued that a ball was "uncatchable" because a DB got there first -- if that's what you're arguing.

But even if I'm wrong about that it doesn't matter, because the only reason the DB was alone with the ball is because they committed a penalty on Gronkowski to take him out of the play early, with the contact starting near the spot that the ball wound up. Sure, it looks like Gronkowski is a mile away after they've mugged him, but I don't see why people are focused on where the players ended up as opposed to how they ended up there.

Gronkowski may not have gotten there. But he may have, and he would have been much closer, and I thought that was the whole point of the rule: you give the benefit of the doubt to the receiver who was mugged.

Granted I thought Brady's throw was pretty poor. But, then, that's another clue: Brady rarely throws to a spot that nobody is occupying and nobody can get to. They took Gronk out of the play.
   4261. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 19, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4602276)

I see it as a bad call because the contact started early and prevented him from having any shot at all at it.

Also, SoSH, I'm not sure you're applying the rule right. "Uncatchable," as far as I always understood, is an equation that only the ball and the receiver are a part of. It's basically, "could the receiver have caught this ball if nobody else were on the field?" Thus, a ball thrown 30 feet over his head is "uncatchable." But this is the first time I have ever heard it argued that a ball was "uncatchable" because a DB was involved -- if that's what you're arguing.

But even if I'm wrong about that it doesn't matter, because the only reason the DB was alone with the ball is because they committed a penalty on Gronkowski to take him out of the play early, with the contact starting near the spot that the ball wound up. Sure, it looks like Gronkowski is a mile away after they've mugged him, but I don't see why people are focused on where the players ended up as opposed to how they ended up there.

Gronkowski may not have gotten there. But he may have, and he would have been much closer, and I thought that was the whole point of the rule: you give the benefit of the doubt to the receiver who was mugged.


I don't know how one can watch the video and conclude that Gronk could have caught the ball, not if one has any understanding of how the human body works.

The illegal contact started just after (or, at the very earliest, simultaneous to), the moment the DB stepped in front of Gronkowki. Gronkowski did not stop at the moment. He kept running, which is natural, since that's the way locotion works. And the DB continued his pursuit to the ball.

If the interfering linebacker did not touch him, it would have still been impossible for Gronkowki to catch the ball before the safety did, or even to break up the pass. It simply defies all logic for anyone to claim otherwise. He's a really good tight end. He's not capable of defying the laws governing human motion.

Yes, most times we talk about a "catchable ball" we're dealing with an overthrown or underthrown ball. So what? Just because the situation is rare doesn't exempt it from inclusion in the rule. Yes, Gronkowski could possibly have caught the ball had the DB not been anywhere on the field, but I don't see why that should be assumed. And my interpretation is entirely consistent with the idea that a ball that is tipped at the line of scrimmage wipes out pass interference later on - the rules don't pretend the rest of the defenders aren't on the field.

   4262. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4602585)
Is there a requirement that the defender play the ball and not defend the pass by grabbing hold of the receiver?

Kuechly said his focus was on Gronkowski and that he 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."
   4263. zenbitz Posted: November 19, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4602607)
Is there actually no illegal contact or defensive holding once the ball is in the air? I guess because you can have players blocking or attempting to block if the pass is not to them.
   4264. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: November 19, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4602620)
Tirico and Gruden piss and moan about calls (or non-calls) more than any football broadcast team I have ever heard.

No kidding. Gruden hating on the officials is almost as big a part of his schtick as his over-the-top praise for the players.
   4265. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2013 at 06:18 PM (#4602636)
as his over-the-top praise for the players.


Honestly, all NFL announcers do this. Dierdorf is at the head of the pack, but the next time I hear an announcer tell you that someone is a bad player will be the first. And yet we know from logic that all players can't be good.

Perhaps they will hint that a backup QB or a kicker as bad, but that's about it.
   4266. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: November 19, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4602642)
From Rule 8, which governs the forward pass:

Section 4 Legal and Illegal Contact With Eligible Receivers

Article 3 Contact Beyond Five-Yard Zone. Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. If the receiver attempts to evade the defender, the defender cannot initiate contact that redirects, restricts, or impedes the receiver in any way.

Article 6 Defensive Holding. It is defensive holding if a player grasps an eligible offensive player (or his jersey) with his hands, or extends an arm or arms to cut off or encircle him.

Article 7 End of Restrictions. If the quarterback or the receiver of the snap demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball (i.e., hands off or pitches the ball to another player, throws a forward or backward pass, loses possession of the ball by a muff that touches the ground or a fumble, or if he is tackled) the restrictions on the defensive team prohibiting illegal contact, an illegal cut block, or defensive holding against an offensive receiver will end.

Section 5 Pass Interference

Article 1 Definition. Pass interference is called if a player's ability to catch the ball is impeded while a yard or more beyond the line of scrimmage. Defensive pass interference applies from when the ball is thrown until the ball is touched be a person or the ground.

Article 2 Prohibited Acts by both teams while the ball is in the air. Acts that are pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.
(b) Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(c) Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.
(d) Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball.
(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.
(f) Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent's body to turn prior to the ball arriving.
(g) Initiating contact with the opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

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.
   4267. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2013 at 06:37 PM (#4602649)
(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.
(b) Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(c) Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.
(d) Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball.
(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.
(f) Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent's body to turn prior to the ball arriving.
(g) Initiating contact with the opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.


So at least a, c, d, and e would apply here, and the exception would not apply because the only reason that the pass was "clearly uncatchable" is because of the pass interference.

   4268. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: November 19, 2013 at 07:11 PM (#4602673)
It was clearly uncatchable because Gronkowski was running to the back of the end zone and had no hope of reversing field and getting in front of Lester.
   4269. dave h Posted: November 19, 2013 at 07:15 PM (#4602676)
Yeah, "clearly uncatchable" is a high standard that is almost never called. To my knowledge it has never been called because of a judgement that another player would have prevented the catch anyway (and there are plenty of opportunities to make such a determination). I assume that's because we don't know if the DB makes the same play if the receiver is closer, and balls go through people's hands all th time. As it was, the DB caught it chest high, 3-4 yards deep in the end zone. At the end of the play, with the contact, Gronkowski ends up about 7 yards deep. It's totally plausible that the contact cost him several yards, and again, the strong default is that it is interference.

People are understating 1) how early the contact happened (the ref afterwards claimed it was at the same time as the throw arrived, which is demonstratably false and 2) the standard that's been set as to what's uncatchable. That's PI 9 times out of 10, where the 10th is the last play of the game and the home team is on defense.
   4270. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2013 at 07:21 PM (#4602680)
Yeah, Kuechly made contact with Gronkowski for several steps. I'm shocked Gronkowski had no chance to catch the ball after that.

Because, you know, had Kuechly not been doing that, Gronkowski would have seen where the ball was going to land and yet kept running away from the ball anyway. Because we know that Gronkowski has no ability to judge where a ball is going to land.
   4271. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 19, 2013 at 08:18 PM (#4602706)

People are understating 1) how early the contact happened (the ref afterwards claimed it was at the same time as the throw arrived, which is demonstratably false and 2) the standard that's been set as to what's uncatchable. That's PI 9 times out of 10, where the 10th is the last play of the game and the home team is on defense.


And you are failing to understand how it it's physically impossible for a player heading in one direction to stop and change direction and catch up to a player heading in the opposite direction in the span of about one second, which is what would have needed to take place for Gronkowski to make that catch.

Had the contact with Kuechly never taken place, Gronkowski would not have caught the ball. If you think otherwise, keep watching the video until you realize your mistake. This is simple stuff. As I said, Gronkowski's a damn good tight end. He is not immune to the laws that govern human motion.

That this is even questionable is beyond belief.

But hell, if you still don't believe me, go test it yourself. Run in one direction, have someone step behind your path and move away see how long it takes to stop and catch up to him.
   4272. dave h Posted: November 19, 2013 at 10:27 PM (#4602750)
Your obnoxious tone not-withstanding, I understand how physics works. What I am saying is that the difference between where Gronkowski ended up and where the ball was intercepted ended up being maybe 3 yards. I think it is totally reasonable that the contact cost him those 3 yards. Furthermore, the ball was chest height when it was intercepted, so if that player had missed it then it would have traveled even closer to Gronkowski. If you have any example of a pass ruled uncatchable because another defensive player would have intercepted it anyway, I would love to see it; otherwise your reference to having to catch the DB is irrelevant. As the rule is called, the ball must be so far away from the receiver that there is absolutely zero chance that he could have caught it, and I don't see how that standard is met here.
   4273. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 19, 2013 at 10:50 PM (#4602756)
Your obnoxious tone not-withstanding, I understand how physics works. What I am saying is that the difference between where Gronkowski ended up and where the ball was intercepted ended up being maybe 3 yards. I think it is totally reasonable that the contact cost him those 3 yards. Furthermore, the ball was chest height when it was intercepted, so if that player had missed it then it would have traveled even closer to Gronkowski. If you have any example of a pass ruled uncatchable because another defensive player would have intercepted it anyway, I would love to see it; otherwise your reference to having to catch the DB is irrelevant. As the rule is called, the ball must be so far away from the receiver that there is absolutely zero chance that he could have caught it, and I don't see how that standard is met here.


I'm not saying Gronkowski couldn't have caught the ball if the intercepting defender wasn't there. I'm saying this was an uncatchable ball because the defender intercepted it at a spot on the field that was one a) Gronkowski couldn't have gotten to, and b) before anywhere Gronkowski could have caught the ball.

I don't know how frequently this type of ruling is made, nor do I really care. If referees aren't ruling this way on balls of this type (which have to be pretty rare), then they're ruling incorrectly.

I do know that if a defender at the line of scrimmage gets a piece of the ball, there is no pass interference behind him. It stands to reason that if the ball is intercepted before the point where the receiver could catch it, it would also negate pass interference. That's exactly what happened here. Take away the contact, and Rob Gronkowski still couldn't have caught this ball. If you take away the other defenders, then yes, he could have. I don't know of anything in the rules that says you have to pretend the non-violating defenders are not on the field of play when determining the catchability of a ball, which is what is necessary to deem this ball catchable.
   4274. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2013 at 11:36 PM (#4602777)
As the rule is called, the ball must be so far away from the receiver that there is absolutely zero chance that he could have caught it, and I don't see how that standard is met here.


The standard is not met. SoSH is blowing it out of his ass. Gronkowski was being interfered with, for several steps, with the defender basically setting up a wall that prevented Gronkowski from coming near the ball.
   4275. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2013 at 11:38 PM (#4602778)
I don't know of anything in the rules that says you have to pretend the non-violating defenders are not on the field of play when determining the catchability of a ball, which is what is necessary to deem this ball catchable.


Really? You've never seen an interception negated by the officials because the receiver was interfered with?
   4276. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: November 19, 2013 at 11:46 PM (#4602781)
Ray: It could happen in theory, though I can't remember any particular instances. Take a Jeff George Special, where the quarterback tries to throw a low line drive to a receiver 35 yards downfield and never sees the linebacker standing in the ball's path 15 yards in front of him. If the linebacker intercepts the pass then the cornerback contacting the receiver 20 yards on downfield would not negate the interception.

Much more common is the interception by Defender A while Defender B is grappling with the receiver five yards away. That is ruled pass interference. I don't understand the intricacies of it.
   4277. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 19, 2013 at 11:53 PM (#4602786)

The standard is not met. SoSH is blowing it out of his ass. Gronkowski was being interfered with, for several steps, with the defender basically setting up a wall that prevented Gronkowski from coming near the ball.


You honestly think that had no contact been made with the offending defender, Gronkowski could have stopped his forward progress, reversed direction and caught that ball before the defensive back already heading in that direction did? Are you seriously claiming that? If so, then clearly you don't have any idea what you're watching when you're watching football.

Really? You've never seen an interception negated by the officials because the receiver was interfered with?


I don't recall seeing interference called when an interception takes place at a spot on the field before the ball would have reached the receiver, no. I wouldn't rule out that it's happened, but if it were a play like last night's, I'd suggest the referees got the call wrong then.

That play was the definition of uncatchable. Had the defender not interfered with Rob Gronkowski, he could not have caught the ball, because it never would have reached the spot on the field where he would have been have been able to catch it. I don't know how anyone could see it any other way.

   4278. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:08 AM (#4602826)
The former NFL official on Mike and Mike said if the ball is tipped or intercepted ahead of where the receiver is on the field then it's uncatchable per se.

Not that this will convince anyone of anything.
   4279. dave h Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:29 AM (#4602829)
SoSH, you just don't know the rules, and now you're trying to figure them out based on a rulebook that is notoriously incomplete and requires a lot of precedent to understand. You're also getting the actual written rules wrong; a tipped ball negates pass interference only if it occurs after the tip (the rule was clearly stated above). Contact with Gronkowski was made well before the ball was touched. This play is not the "definition of uncatchable". Were it not for interference, you have no idea whether the DB still makes the pick. Even if Gronkowski doesn't get there, maybe the DB hears footsteps and whiffs it. That's why the rule has always been interpreted as being if the ball is well out of reach, not if there is a 3rd player in the way. That the NFL has chosen to interpret the rule that way since its inception does not mean they are wrong.

You can't see it any other way because (I'll be charitable) you're not trying very hard to see it the other way, not because your case is open and shut.
   4280. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:36 AM (#4602833)
a tipped ball negates pass interference only if it occurs after the tip (the rule was clearly stated above)

Sorry, I don't remember the actual words he used but my impression at the time was that it depended on the location on the field not being "ahead" in time.

And I'm sure it's reflexive for him to do so but he sided with the call on the field based upon the other defender's ability to reach the ball.
   4281. zenbitz Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:43 AM (#4602834)
It was a pretty odd no call. Especially after the flag was thrown and then picked up. That being said, it was a pretty unusual play with the combination of one db pushing a receiver out of the play while a second one cuts in front for the INT.

What happens if no flag is ever thrown, do we notice?
What happens if the ball isn't intercepted, is the penalty called now?
   4282. dave h Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:47 AM (#4602838)
By the way, Kuechly committed PI in the last seconds of the Bills game, negating a teammate's interception on a high throw. You'll be shocked to hear that game was in Buffalo.

play at 2:16
   4283. dave h Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:50 AM (#4602840)
Sorry, I don't remember the actual words he used but my impression at the time was that it depended on the location on the field not being "ahead" in time.


From the definition above:
Defensive pass interference applies from when the ball is thrown until the ball is touched be a person or the ground.

"when", not "where" - it's the timing that matters. The interception was well after the contact, so this exception clearly does not apply.
   4284. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:50 AM (#4602841)
SoSH, you just don't know the rules, and now you're trying to figure them out based on a rulebook that is notoriously incomplete and requires a lot of precedent to understand. You're also getting the actual written rules wrong; a tipped ball negates pass interference only if it occurs after the tip (the rule was clearly stated above).


The point of the tip is that the NFL does not pretend the rest of the defenders are not on the field, as you were doing above. If a defensive lineman intercepts a pass at the line, officials are not going to call pass interference on any pass interference going on downfield, regardless when the contact occurs.

Even if Gronkowski doesn't get there, maybe the DB hears footsteps and whiffs it.


That's quite the stretch there.

That's why the rule has always been interpreted as being if the ball is well out of reach, not if there is a 3rd player in the way. That the NFL has chosen to interpret the rule that way since its inception does not mean they are wrong.


I think the rule is generally applied to balls being well out of reach because that's what's usually the case, not that it's the only case. I don't think your assessment that "this is the way it's always interpreted" is the correct one.

And the rule itself, as written above, says nothing about defining a catchable ball as only one that's out of reach. It simply says that the ball is not catchable by the involved players (presumably the interfered with and the interferee). The player who made the interception was not an involved player. And, absent the interference but with everything else as is, Rob Gronkowski would not have been able to catch that ball. I don't think any other interpretation of that is particularly logical, nor supported by the rulebook.

Of course, it seems that all of the referees, both present and past, agreed with the interpretation on the field. So either they're lying, or someone besides me is interpreting the rule that way.


From the definition above:
Defensive pass interference applies from when the ball is thrown until the ball is touched be a person or the ground.


A rule that is directly negated by Article 3.
   4285. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:53 AM (#4602843)
From the definition above:
Defensive pass interference applies from when the ball is thrown until the ball is touched be a person or the ground.

"when", not "where" - it's the timing that matters. The interception was well after the contact, so this exception clearly does not apply.


He's talking about the scope of Article 3 (definition of "uncatchable"), not Article 1.

EDIT: and I hate the uncatchable rule.
   4286. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 20, 2013 at 02:09 AM (#4602848)

EDIT: and I hate the uncatchable rule.


I'm not a big fan of much of the NFL rulebook.

Here was one from a few years ago, and I want to see if anyone else either remembers it (or felt the same way I did).

Saints facing fourth and one and they go for it. Brees takes the snap and jumps forward, thrusting the ball momentarily past the first-down marker, then pulls the ball back to prevent it from being stripped. He's subsequently swarmed by the defense. He was naturally awarded a first down. However, his forward progress was not stopped by the defense - he wasn't touched by the defense until well after he pulled the ball back. Since the first down line is not a once-broken plane like the goal line, I don't know how this should have been a first down (it struck me as similar to a receiver who catches a ball past the first down marker but loses yardage in a voluntary attempt to shake defenders).

Naturally, no one on the MNF crew mentioned it, nor was there a challenge. Is there a reason that play should have been a first down that I'm not aware of, or was that just a blown call?
   4287. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 20, 2013 at 03:01 AM (#4602857)
From the definition above:
Defensive pass interference applies from when the ball is thrown until the ball is touched be a person or the ground.

"when", not "where" - it's the timing that matters. The interception was well after the contact, so this exception clearly does not apply.


Yes.

-----

Of course, it seems that all of the referees, both present and past, agreed with the interpretation on the field. So either they're lying, or someone besides me is interpreting the rule that way.


Some referees including their current boss agreed with the call? Shocker!

Have you ever watched when they get talking head lawyers on tv to analyze trials, how the defense attorneys almost always side with the defendant and the prosecutors almost always side with the prosecution? Odd how that happens, isn't it? Just totally random.
   4288. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 20, 2013 at 03:03 AM (#4602859)
By the way, Kuechly committed PI in the last seconds of the Bills game, negating a teammate's interception on a high throw. You'll be shocked to hear that game was in Buffalo.

play at 2:16


Yep, same basic play. And the interception was negated.
   4289. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 20, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4602889)
Yep, same basic play. And the interception was negated.


No, it's not the same play. The interception there occurred after the ball passed the receiver. That makes it very much not the same play at all. Do you even understand the issue here, or are you just banging random words out on your keyboard?



   4290. dave h Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:33 AM (#4602918)
Of course, it seems that all of the referees, both present and past, agreed with the interpretation on the field. So either they're lying, or someone besides me is interpreting the rule that way.


No, you're the one who is lying:
https://twitter.com/MikePereira
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/11/19/former-officials-disagree-panthers-patriots-pass-interference-non-call/3641985/

Even the NFL could only go so far as say "the call was not wrong", which isn't much support.

I'm not a big fan of much of the NFL rulebook.


That says it all.
   4291. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4602955)
Per VP of officiating Blandino, the issue is whether restrictive contact occurred before the ball was touched. Not Gronks momentum, not where the ball was caught relative to Gronk. They made a judgment call and got it wrong; it happens. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you have to play out the rest of the season under protest or even feel sympathy for the patriots.
   4292. stanmvp48 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4602978)
4291: "or even feel sympathy for the patriots." No not since the tuck rule fiasco.

4286: Here is one I remember from just a few weeks ago. Golden tate is running for a long TD, against STLouis I believe. He is taunting the DBs as he runs. Unsportsmanlike conduct is called for the taunting. But the touchdown stands, even though the penalty occurred before he scored.


   4293. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 20, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4603023)
In college it would be ruled no touchdown. It was actually a rule change implemented very recently.
   4294. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 20, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4603133)
...oh and that obnoxious grandstanding about understanding physics back in #4277? Yeah, ESPN took a look at that....

Sport Science projects that untouched, Gronk would have been able to decelerate from 16 mph to 0 mph in roughly a half-second. That would have given the Patriots tight end time to use his 8-foot-3 reach to make a play on the ball.

Link
   4295. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 20, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4603152)

Sport Science projects that untouched, Gronk would have been able to decelerate from 16 mph to 0 mph in roughly a half-second. That would have given the Patriots tight end time to use his 8-foot-3 reach to make a play on the ball.


That's unpossible! SoSH said that would defy the laws of physics!

Quoting our self-appointed physics scholar:

"[H]is momentum made it physically impossible for him to get anywhere near the DB who made the pick."

That was a ridiculous overbid from the start.
   4296. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: November 20, 2013 at 04:54 PM (#4603247)
Here was one from a few years ago, and I want to see if anyone else either remembers it (or felt the same way I did).

Wild card game against the Lions two years ago. You're not the only one who felt that way (first referenced with comment 49).


Sport Science projects that untouched, Gronk would have been able to decelerate from 16 mph to 0 mph in roughly a half-second. That would have given the Patriots tight end time to use his 8-foot-3 reach to make a play on the ball.


A) "Untouched" is not the standard.
B) Getting to 0 MPH isn't the problem, it's propelling himself in the opposite direction after having run past the point where the ball will be caught.
C) 8'3" is his standing *vertical* reach, so they're basically assuming he'd have levitated parallel to the ground at the height the ball was caught, which doesn't get him to Lester's back, let alone the ball.

But smugly hanging your hat on a fake ESPN "science" segment is the most Ray-DiPerna thing ever, so congratulations on that.
   4297. dave h Posted: November 21, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4603988)
A) Actually, it is. You can only touch someone if it doesn't actually impede their progress, in which case it is equivalent in this case to being untouched.

B) They calculated when he would have reached 0 MPH, and it was close to where the ball was caught. He wouldn't have had to start running in the other direction.

C) They're not clear how they used this number. Presumably they didn't calculate that he would be three yards past the ball but would be able to turn sideways and reach, but of course they don't show their work.

I don't think anyone's taking the "sports science" bit is the definitive proof. But it's clearly more informative than SoSH's physics, which he pulled out of his ass.
   4298. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 21, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4604015)
I was going to let this go, but since angry dave h is back , what the hell.*

First, the Sports Science segment concluded that you couldn't realistically expect Gronk to have caught that ball, but it was theoretically possible. As refutations go, it's not exactly curb-stomping.

Moreover, I have a few issues with their assumptions (by the way, it's gone from that link now, so I'm working off memory).

He spoke of Gronk decelerating from 0 to 16 MPH from the point where he started to decelerate. However, there's no indication that Gronk was trying to go from 0 to 16 at that point, but was instead still proceeding upfield, just at a slower rate (not surprising, the back of the end zone was approaching and he was going to need to look for the ball). Either way, such a process would lengthen the amount of time for complete deceleration and push his final spot on the field further, both making it harder for him to come back to catch the ball.

Second, I don't think he allowed for the amount of time it would take to stretch his 8-foot-3 frame from where he was to where the ball was caught. I don't know how long it takes, but I'm sure it's a bit longer than .000.

Given that, my ass and I are just as comfortable now as previously that Rob Gronkowski could not have caught that ball.

Look at it this way. The DB and Gronk crossed paths at one point in the end zone. The DB continued on a straight path to the ball, and caught it while he was still moving (or very close - he wasn't waiting around for it). From that point where the two crossed paths, Gronk was going to have to come to a complete stop, and then make up the lost ground to get back to the same point the DB was on a straight line and moving to. How does that pass Ray's famous sniffer test?

* Whatever obnoxiousness was present in my tone, and I'll certainly cop to some it, has been more than repaid with interest by messrs. h and d.
   4299. stanmvp48 Posted: November 21, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4604029)
I don't really know if "uncatchable" is defined anywhere in the book; but I suspect it is not. I always took it to mean obviously ####### uncatchable, and I think that is how it has been applied. If a Zapruder level analysis is necessary to determine whether he could have or would have caught it; then it should not, IMHO, be considered uncatchable.
   4300. jmurph Posted: November 21, 2013 at 04:06 PM (#4604031)
Flip
Page 43 of 80 pages ‹ First  < 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-30-2014
(38 - 11:17pm, Jul 30)
Last: Walks Clog Up the Bases

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1956 Ballot
(9 - 11:17pm, Jul 30)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogPosnanski: Hey, Rube: Phillies pay dearly for Amaro’s misguided loyalty
(20 - 11:12pm, Jul 30)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

NewsblogCameron: Why a July 31 trade deadline just doesn’t make sense anymore
(14 - 11:06pm, Jul 30)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCubs Acquire Felix Doubront
(46 - 10:59pm, Jul 30)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1032 - 10:50pm, Jul 30)
Last: robinred

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3797 - 10:47pm, Jul 30)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(679 - 10:46pm, Jul 30)
Last: zack

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(154 - 10:39pm, Jul 30)
Last: BDC

NewsblogPosnanski: Four theories about Hall of Fame voting changes
(27 - 10:32pm, Jul 30)
Last: DanO

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(14 - 10:30pm, Jul 30)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogEric Chavez Retires
(28 - 10:03pm, Jul 30)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogRed Sox trade rumors: 'Very good chance' John Lackey and Jon Lester are traded - Over the Monster
(51 - 9:47pm, Jul 30)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(529 - 9:37pm, Jul 30)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogVICE: Baseball Erotica #1: John Smoltz and Tom Glavine
(8 - 8:58pm, Jul 30)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

Page rendered in 1.0367 seconds
55 querie(s) executed