brdmaverick

I understand this is old news, but after the Patriots defeated the Ravens all the talk was dominated by.....

1.) Cundiff's missed field goal kick
2.) Can we beat the Giants?
3.) Gronk's Injury

One aspect of the game that gets overlooked (because we won) was Gronk's third down catch attempt that was ruled as an incompletion in the first half with the Patriots driving.

I was rewatching the game today, and the Patriots would have been wise to challenge this call. The image I took below clearly shows Gronk with the ball AND his back foot still on the ground. The second image shows his other foot coming down (but that really wasn't up for debate).




Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

supafly

It was talked about at length in several different threads and in the media.

The NEP will not challenge a call unless they can see a clear view that the call should be overturned, as the fear is to lose a possible 3rd challenge, and even more importantly--a crucial timeout that could be used late in the game.

The only time that desparation gets in the way is if it's terribly close and it's a very crucial play late in the game...a la SB 46 w/ Manningham's sideline catch.

A first half drive with no 'clear' evidence in time will never warrant a BB challenge.

We've seen much more crucial plays like the Gronk TD late in the game in Pittsburgh that could've possibly changed the outcome, and that one didn't even get challenged.

__________________
Patiently waiting to defend the next "bubble" player in this summer's training camp.....

jcdavey

from those images, it looks like a clear catch with 2 feet in, to me


i was perplexed at why your head coach would challenge that sb catch

his guy(s) upstairs had time to let him know it was clearly a catch with 2 feet in.

supafly

The circumstances made it difficult.

First of all, the Giants ran to the line to try and get the play off. There was not time for Ernie Adams (or whomever it may be) to relay that information. Sometimes there just isn't the time to access a good look 4 and 5 times over from different angles during that elapsed 30 or so seconds.

Secondly, we've seen other clear-cut instances where there should have been a challenge but it was not. As talked about in the Pittsburgh game, CBS did not replay the play in question in enough time, and Belichick said that he just didn't have a good enough angle all the way at the opposite endzone to see if Gronkowski crossed the line or not. Hence his proposed idea about cameras in the pile-ons to give a better view. Eventually I believe it will happen.

There was also the instance of the play in this thread from the AFCCG. Sometimes it's hard to get a good enough view and the looks upstairs aren't clear enough, or fast enough. That's why this particular play was not challenged, as important as it was. Belichick does not like to waste a timeout, and views those as possibly being very precious at the end of games. That's just his style, and judging by his 8 for 9 attempts on challenges this yr (the best in the NFL) it works the majority of the time.

As far as the SB play...it was damn close. Manningham went on the record to admit that if he had worn a shoe that was size 11 1/2 (instead of 11) that he would not have made it inbounds. It is very easy for us to say "that play was clear-cut" after NBC showed us 7 different views from every camera angle known to man. If you remember the situation, both announcers could not make up their minds until after seeing it multiple times. Unfortunately, when you are in the Super Bowl in the final drive of the opposing team, with the entire season on the line---you rely on instincts. With Manning and the offense booking up to the line, and the season at hand--Belichick took a risk.

Put it this way...can you imagine the backlash that would have incurred had Manningham NOT been in bounds clear enough? The potential of the season would have been handed to the Giants. I would have to imagine that 32 out of 32 NFL coaches would have easily done the same thing.

We've seen those kinds of 'desparation challenges' before in just about every single game that we've all watched all year long; and only one of them was in the Super Bowl.

I know I would have challenged the SB play every single time. How could anyone NOT??? What do you really have to lose at that point if you're wrong? A timeout with less than 2-3 minutes in the biggest game of the year? C'mon!!

__________________
Patiently waiting to defend the next "bubble" player in this summer's training camp.....

jcdavey

did the giants really run 40 yards to the line that fast?

i'll be back in a bit after i review my copy of the game to see how much time he had

jcdavey

damn, deleted it after i made it into a dvd for my gf...crap, i'll have to review the dvd sometime to see how much time he actually had, but i can't imagine the giants would be able to run up quick enough for him not to get a good replay, and they were replaying that play very quickly and with great angles

SeymourTrophies

Yeah, we really didn't have anything to lose by challenging that manningham catch, and we probably needed to take a timeout anyway. Why not blow a challenge with only a little bit of time left where you can use a challenge and hope that maybe you get lucky ( a la the booth review @ jets)?

This one, I have no idea why it wasn't challenged. People talk about how you need indisputable evidence, etc. I think two feet down and two mits on the ball is clear enough. The info was not relayed to BB quickly at all, and, if I remember correctly, the kicking team was on the field so fast it would have been pretty difficult to get the right info to BB. Not sure why they were in such a hurry to kick.

__________________
Forza Roma, Go Pats, Go Sox

Palm Beach Pats Fan

The cost to challenging and being denied was a time out in the first half, which could not be carried over to the second half for use "late in the game".

Thus it was well worth the risk IMO, but the Patriots do set a high bar on when to challenge, and sometimes the information is not processed and conveyed to BB fast enough, it seems. I would hope that they could accelerate the decision process there, which must rely on Ernie Adams or an assistant coach watching the video upstairs.

Ultimately it did not cost us with respect to the outcome of the game, but it could have, and I would bet that as thorough as BB is, the subject of being too slow with review and communication has been discussed and hopefully has been corrected.

__________________
It is what it is, so just go out there and do your job!

Steve:Section 102

The Giants did a fairly good job getting to the line. The network did not show the replay immediately, but stayed with field shots. I remember thinking it was unusual that we didn't get a look right after. I'm not willing to call foul and say "they didn't give the replay to us", but chose to stay on the field instead. If I remember correctly, BB threw the challenge flag at the instant the replay showed on the screen. As posted already, he had no choice but to go with instinct on it, the championship in the balance.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PatsFanSince74

Yep.

In one situation the Pats didn't challenge, probably would have won the challenge but the decision didn't change the outcome of the game. Only BB really knows why and I'm sure he'll review the decision and the surrounding process.

In the other, the Pats did challenge, lost the challenge and so the game's progress was not altered. I doubt BB would have done anything different if he had it to do over, knowing what he knew at the time.

Time to move on.

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.