Investigation

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonIrishGuy. Show BostonIrishGuy's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pick which penalty should have been called regardless of Lester eventually intercepting the ball !,A)  Illegal contact beyond the 5 yard allowable area, B) Holding on Kuechly, C) PI on Kuechly. Or was it all three? Whichever one of these options you pick at least you will have made a better choice than these refs did, their not majing the call is one thing but then after the game and after seeing the tape they swore they got it right . BS! You all realize they haven't called the illegal stacking call against any team since the Patriots loss to the Jets with that call.... Goodell former Jets Comptroller is having a great time sending in the clowns to rip the Patriots off.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree WHOLEHARTEDLY, THE CROOK GOODELL AND HIS NEW YORK CRONIES ARE DEFINATELY UP TO TRYING TO SCREW TEH PATS ANY WAY THEY CAN. LAST NIGHT WAS A PRIME EXAMPLE, AND SO WAS THE END OF THE JETS GAME. ITS OBVIOUS GOODELL HATES BOSTON SPORTS TEAMS, ESPECIALLY THE PATS, AND PROBABLY THE SOX TOO SINCE HE'S AN AVID YANKEE FAN. IM DONE WATCHING NFL FOOTBALL.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheTinMan. Show TheTinMan's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    with due respect it did not appear that Gronkowski's route adjusted significantly.  the ball was thrown well short of him.  the defender went down to get the ball.  In order Gronkowski to have made that play unimpeded.  He would have had to have stopped his momentum and literally dove back to the ball before it hit the ground.  I am not saying that it couldn't have happened but it seems unlikely for a guy who weighs 270# and has momentum going in the opposite direction. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Nothing wrong with a difference of opinion, but take a lok at the replay that someone posted on this thread.  First note Gronk's route line compared to the goal post and watch the entry angle of the ball.  Gronk is push off the line he had heading toward the post, and the ball angle was heading to the post.


    Second, take a good look at where the defender actuall catches the ball.  He is not diving for it near the ground, he actually catches it fairly upright and right in the numbers.

    Again, I'm not saying this call cost them the game.  At best, if the PI was made, the Pats have the ball at the 1 with one chance to get it into the end zone, and that is not guaranteed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NFW anybody can say 100% that the ball was uncatchable.

     

    http://images.ftw.usatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/822649387.gif

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice job.

    If you look at Gronk, at one point it looks like he wants to plant his right foot down to go back for the ball but cant due to offender holding him.

    At the end of the day, their is a penalty on the play, a flag was thrown. An uncatchable ball to me is a ball that lands well out of bounds. This one was catchable, since a defender just feet away from intended target actually caught the ball.

    [/QUOTE]


    The big problem is he had some momentum toward the back and the defender corralling him simply increased that momentum so it was irreversible.

    If you look at exactly where the defender starts the push Gronk is only 2-3 feet away from where the ball was picked and is actually closer to it than the defender that picked it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really nice angle on the graphic.  I hadn't seen that one, and it does look a lot more catchable from that angle.  However, you'd still have a hard time saying that Gronk would have been able to get to that pass before the interceptor.  The interceptor made his move before the initiation of contact on Gronk, and Gronk couldn't have reversed field in time ot beat him to the ball.  It's closer than I thought, but I still don't see how it would be possible for Gronk to get there or make the catch without taking the defender out...

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What was the line in vegas?

    [/QUOTE]

    I dunno I don't follow the lines. Not much of a bettor here. I feel thats a huge problem and always has been. The betting and now the fantasy. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Amen, I have grown to hate fantasy football.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to MoreRings' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What was the line in vegas?

    [/QUOTE]

    I dunno I don't follow the lines. Not much of a bettor here. I feel thats a huge problem and always has been. The betting and now the fantasy. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Amen, I have grown to hate fantasy football.

    [/QUOTE]

    Again I don't bet nor have much knowledge of points and over under etc. I did think I heard that Carolina covered and took the points with that call. Is this true and can someone find out?

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to HeygangLH's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The pats lost. They were getting 3 points. That means the pats start the game out 3-0. Fortunately for me the pats lost.

    I don't care for the pats

    [/QUOTE]

    So the Pats losing made people money more than had they won?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NFW anybody can say 100% that the ball was uncatchable.

     

    http://images.ftw.usatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/822649387.gif

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice job.

    If you look at Gronk, at one point it looks like he wants to plant his right foot down to go back for the ball but cant due to offender holding him.

    At the end of the day, their is a penalty on the play, a flag was thrown. An uncatchable ball to me is a ball that lands well out of bounds. This one was catchable, since a defender just feet away from intended target actually caught the ball.

    [/QUOTE]

    The defender who made the interception made contact with Gronk about 3 yards in the endzone.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to JulesWinfield's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NFW anybody can say 100% that the ball was uncatchable.

     

    http://images.ftw.usatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/822649387.gif

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice job.

    If you look at Gronk, at one point it looks like he wants to plant his right foot down to go back for the ball but cant due to offender holding him.

    At the end of the day, their is a penalty on the play, a flag was thrown. An uncatchable ball to me is a ball that lands well out of bounds. This one was catchable, since a defender just feet away from intended target actually caught the ball.

    [/QUOTE]


    The big problem is he had some momentum toward the back and the defender corralling him simply increased that momentum so it was irreversible.

    If you look at exactly where the defender starts the push Gronk is only 2-3 feet away from where the ball was picked and is actually closer to it than the defender that picked it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really nice angle on the graphic.  I hadn't seen that one, and it does look a lot more catchable from that angle.  However, you'd still have a hard time saying that Gronk would have been able to get to that pass before the interceptor.  The interceptor made his move before the initiation of contact on Gronk, and Gronk couldn't have reversed field in time ot beat him to the ball.  It's closer than I thought, but I still don't see how it would be possible for Gronk to get there or make the catch without taking the defender out...

    [/QUOTE]


    I have to disagree. Looking at this freeze from the gif it shows the initial point of contact and the "X" shows where the ball was finally intercepted.

    It is impossible to say Gronk could not have made any play on the ball from this evidence.

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to HeygangLH's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No way Gronk gets that unless of course he's 15 tall and can jump over buildings in a single bound.

    let it go-the pats got a few calls their way in the 1st half-you should be worried about how bad the Broncos are going to just trounce the pats next.

    Can you imagine what it's going to be like in here after that bloodbath?!

    [/QUOTE]


    LMAO The Colts beat the donkeys fool.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Investigation


    Here's something to read from Boston Based Football Outsiders:

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/clutch-encounters/2013/clutch-encounters-week-11

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JulesWinfield's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NFW anybody can say 100% that the ball was uncatchable.

     

    http://images.ftw.usatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/822649387.gif

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice job.

    If you look at Gronk, at one point it looks like he wants to plant his right foot down to go back for the ball but cant due to offender holding him.

    At the end of the day, their is a penalty on the play, a flag was thrown. An uncatchable ball to me is a ball that lands well out of bounds. This one was catchable, since a defender just feet away from intended target actually caught the ball.

    [/QUOTE]


    The big problem is he had some momentum toward the back and the defender corralling him simply increased that momentum so it was irreversible.

    If you look at exactly where the defender starts the push Gronk is only 2-3 feet away from where the ball was picked and is actually closer to it than the defender that picked it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really nice angle on the graphic.  I hadn't seen that one, and it does look a lot more catchable from that angle.  However, you'd still have a hard time saying that Gronk would have been able to get to that pass before the interceptor.  The interceptor made his move before the initiation of contact on Gronk, and Gronk couldn't have reversed field in time ot beat him to the ball.  It's closer than I thought, but I still don't see how it would be possible for Gronk to get there or make the catch without taking the defender out...

    [/QUOTE]


    I have to disagree. Looking at this freeze from the gif it shows the initial point of contact and the "X" shows where the ball was finally intercepted.

    It is impossible to say Gronk could not have made any play on the ball from this evidence.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Irrelevant, at least this type of evidence shouldnt be neccessary. Once the hands were on gronk and both arms being pinned down, its a penalty. People are trying to water it down when its clear as day. Don't let people say you are just whining, its real, theres evidence and its not hard to see. Clear as day.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: Investigation

    There have certainly been bad calls from time to time, and even more bad non calls.  I'm not willing to say there is some grand design behind them, but I will say 2 out of the 3 games we lost this year can be laid directly at the feet of the refs.  I mean of all times to break out a new rule on field goals.  Why would you do it, for the first (and only thus far) time in OT at the most pivotal and crucial moment, even when it had absolutely nothing to do with the play and did not interfere with the kick in anyway?  That smelled badly. 

    But last night, went far beyond that.  They could have made 3 different calls against Khuechly on that play.  Throwing your arms around a player, pinning their arms to their sides, and pushing them out of range of the play.  It was so blatantly obvious and one of the most easy calls to make.  And he did make it.  Then after confering with the head ref, who was no where near the play, he tucks it back in his pocket, the game is announced over and they then proceed to run off the field???  Anyone who hasn't read Peter King's article about it this morning should go do so ASAP.  He shines a very big spotlight on this, and says to try to justify a non call is an insult to the intelligence of every fan and player because it's a blatant lie. 

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Investigation

    Q.  When is a bear hug, by a linebacker, on a receiver more than 5 yards downfield not defensive holding?

    A.  It depends.  Who are we talking about?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JulesWinfield's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The contact seemed to rise to the point of interference or illegal contact a split second before the ball was intercepted four or five yards in front of the receivers.  At that point, there was no way Gronk could have come back and take the ball away from the interceptor without going through him.  Seriously, with his momentum going towards the back of the end-zone, I don't see how he could even have touched the defender.  True, we see plays like these get called all the time, but I don't see how the ball could have been catchable...

    [/QUOTE]

    I can understand seeing it that way at the time the ball came into the end zone.  However, from what I saw on the replays, Gronk was angling in on his route, and his path would have intersected the path of the ball, except the defender got in front of him and quite literally pushed him off his route. Just my opinion, but I think there was a penalty there.

    I also think the Panthers did what they had to for the win, and the Pats should not have been in a position where one play determined the outcome.

    [/QUOTE]


    with due respect it did not appear that Gronkowski's route adjusted significantly.  the ball was thrown well short of him.  the defender went down to get the ball.  In order Gronkowski to have made that play unimpeded.  He would have had to have stopped his momentum and literally dove back to the ball before it hit the ground.  I am not saying that it couldn't have happened but it seems unlikely for a guy who weighs 270# and has momentum going in the opposite direction. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Classic UD..   replace Gronk with a Colt receiver and Manning passing the ball and you'd feel the same way, huh?  So easy when it is not YOUR team.  Besides, Colts always got these calls back in the day against every team they played, it seemed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mattc355. Show mattc355's posts

    Re: Investigation

    _

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Q.  When is a bear hug, by a linebacker, on a receiver more than 5 yards downfield not defensive holding?

    A.  It depends.  Who are we talking about?

    [/QUOTE]

    Per the article I cited earlier from Boston based Football Outsiders - http://www.footballoutsiders.com/clutch-encounters/2013/clutch-encounters-week-11 - defensive holding cannot be the call when the ball is in the air.  Thus, it is either PI or it is not PI, because the refs deemed the ball uncatchable, it is not PI. 

    The site went on to provide evidence of a Gronkowski TD where he pushed off but was not called for it.  As they noted, you cannot have it both ways. 

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JulesWinfield's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The contact seemed to rise to the point of interference or illegal contact a split second before the ball was intercepted four or five yards in front of the receivers.  At that point, there was no way Gronk could have come back and take the ball away from the interceptor without going through him.  Seriously, with his momentum going towards the back of the end-zone, I don't see how he could even have touched the defender.  True, we see plays like these get called all the time, but I don't see how the ball could have been catchable...

    [/QUOTE]

    I can understand seeing it that way at the time the ball came into the end zone.  However, from what I saw on the replays, Gronk was angling in on his route, and his path would have intersected the path of the ball, except the defender got in front of him and quite literally pushed him off his route. Just my opinion, but I think there was a penalty there.

    I also think the Panthers did what they had to for the win, and the Pats should not have been in a position where one play determined the outcome.

    [/QUOTE]


    with due respect it did not appear that Gronkowski's route adjusted significantly.  the ball was thrown well short of him.  the defender went down to get the ball.  In order Gronkowski to have made that play unimpeded.  He would have had to have stopped his momentum and literally dove back to the ball before it hit the ground.  I am not saying that it couldn't have happened but it seems unlikely for a guy who weighs 270# and has momentum going in the opposite direction. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Classic UD..   replace Gronk with a Colt receiver and Manning passing the ball and you'd feel the same way, huh?  So easy when it is not YOUR team.  Besides, Colts always got these calls back in the day against every team they played, it seemed.

    [/QUOTE]
    never against the pats.  The way Gronkowski was played last night on that play is the way the pats always played the colts and the refs whistles and flags were buried deeply in their pockets. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to HeygangLH's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That ball was uncatchable! There I said it!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Sit the f**k down and crawl back in the hole you came from !  If you hate the Pats so much, why are you here ?

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: Investigation

    In response to JulesWinfield's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    However, you'd still have a hard time saying that Gronk would have been able to get to that pass before the interceptor.  The interceptor made his move before the initiation of contact on Gronk, and Gronk couldn't have reversed field in time ot beat him to the ball.  It's closer than I thought, but I still don't see how it would be possible for Gronk to get there or make the catch without taking the defender out...

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't quite get why everyone seems to think this argument is in anyway relevant???  From what this argument is implying, it is ok to wrap up a receiver and then forcefully move him off of his route, and so long as the ball doesn't quite make it within 2 yards of the inteded receiver, it's fine.  Is that honestly what I'm hearing here? 

     

     

Share