3201

And if Gronk wasn’t interfered with, there’s no guarantee he doesn’t make some kind of play.

I’ll say this. It’s very improbable Gronk makes it back in time to get the pass, Brady straight underthrew him. HOWEVER, you cannot waive off a PI for an uncatchable ball unless there’s a 100% certainty that the receiver can’t make a legitimate play on the ball if the PI didn’t exist. And such certainty does not exist on that play even with the interception.

3202

Perhaps in your mind, but the NFL rulebook says something very different. The ball was caught well in front of Gronk. Therefore the ball was not catchable by Gronk.

3203

Tom brady keeping it classy :rofl:

Why ted ginn, why?

Why do you come and go like the wind? And Why do I keep you on my fantasy roster?!

3204

In the end, regardless of what was the right call, what I’m mostly annoyed about is that in the end the Refs were the ones who decided the game. The second they threw the flag and conferred, it was no longer about the players but about the Refs. They essentially had a conference to decide who wins the game (yeah the Pats would’ve still had to score, but I don’t see Brady not punching it in from the 1).

3205

This game has some terrible rules and some terrible officiating. I mean, we literally had a super bowl ref tell the audience “The way we wrote the rules, two wrongs DO make a right.”

Well…you know…:lol:

3206

He kept it pretty classy in the post game interview.

PI is always such a huge freaking call. I wished it was a reviewable call too, the only call I can think of in sports that has a bigger impact than PI in the NFL is a red card in soccer.

You can blow like 8 calls in the NBA and a lot of times the right team still wins. You make 1 bad PI / non PI call and that changes everything.

3207

Unfortunately PI is way too much of an opinion-based penalty to really make use of replay. In the end it would still come down to referee bias.

I just hate that the refs gave themselves essentially the power to decide the game. And I know someone will bring up “Hah, you DO want the refs to let them play” and no I don’t. There’s a difference.

If the refs hadn’t thrown a flag, fine, whatever. If the refs threw it and just immediately called the PI, fine. Either way, more attention would’ve been on the players performing or not. But no, they threw the flag and then had a conference on whether it should stand or not, giving them the opportunity to have the time to play God for the game.

3208

Isn’t it better that they threw it, thought about it, then made the decision versus going off of their first (wrong) instinct? Isn’t that the point of replay - to get it right? That’s what the refs did - conferred to get it right

3209

Normally yes. However, this is to decide THE GAME. The second the conference happens it’s no longer about the players.

For all we know the refs could have ulterior motives. Now, in no way am I actually suggesting the game was rigged because there’s very little on the line for the NFL in that game as both teams are pretty secure in their chances at the playoffs and their spots. But you still don’t know.

And again I’m still very adamant about the call being wrong but that’s me. But with how the play went out, the rule became more left to Referee interpretation rather than an outright, letter of the law, yes this is right or no it’s wrong call. The play was done enough where there was at least a SLIGHT doubt as to the fact that Gronk couldn’t make it. I’d say there’s a 5% max chance that he could’ve made it back, but it’s not an outright 0% that he couldn’t have been involved in the play. So the Refs have to decide the interpretation on the field for themselves, whether anything less than 100% certainty is good enough to pick up the flag. And according to REPLAY rules, the similarity you bring up, if you cannot 100% confirm it you do not overturn the call. And HOWEVER unlikely it was that he was making it back, and he probably wasn’t, there’s still that slight possibility and it’s enough.

3210

make it back where? to tackle the guy that caught the ball?

3211

Alright fine, I give up.

It wasn’t PI, I’m wasting people’s time and I’m being stupid. It’s obvious Gronk never had a chance to begin with.

3212

You know defending a call for the Pats is never a winning situation since 95% of football fans hate them.

Gronk could have got shot with an AK47 on the field and a lot of people would have argued that it was justified.

3213

nba is weirder though cause they make fuck up in a game and then the next night try to make it up. nfl wont ever try that shit lol.

3214

More reason for everyone to hate us, but I don’t care I find it funny!

http://i.imgur.com/lRlk9Hk.gif

3215

i like sherm, have him on my fantasy team 2 years in a row, but he about to be dropped, dude not making any plays like he was earlier in the year.

3216

The real question is could Gronk come back to the ball if he wasn’t interefered with and beat the other defender to the spot. Maybe, maybe not.

3217

Looks like I missed ESPN’s SRK NFL Thread show.

3218

it was not PI, that part was correct, i don’t think gronk would have had any chance to catch that ball (and since the player intercepted it by going in front of the intended receiver, the PI is waved off anyways)

but it was definitely defensive holding as kuchley basically gave gronk a bear hug for a good 13 yards, that should’ve been called and given the patriots 1 more chance

3219

WTF? :rofl:

3220

i can tell you, it’s definitely not flowers