Gronk was in bounds why no challege?

[stick21]

is this the play with 3:10 left in the first half? If so then he was out of bounds not even close not sure what you guys are seeing. I have it recorded and he gets Possession with one foot on the ground second foot way out of bounds.

go look at it again
he catches the ball with his left foot down takes a step with his right foot down and yes his next step his left foot is way out of bounds

 

[PatsWSB47]

Clearly a catch but needs slow motion replay. Too risky to challenge?

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I'm guessing they would have just stuck with the call on the field and say he didn't have possession before his right foot came off the ground.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Is it enough to have a toe down or do you have to have your heel down as well?

 

[SaCaCh]

go look at it again
he catches the ball with his left foot down takes a step with his right foot down and yes his next step his left foot is way out of bounds

I think you guys are giving Gronk and his huge hands possession too early. I don't see possession until the left foot lifts. It is engulfed by his hands but his hands don't close to "catch" it until that foot lifts.
Don't see where it would of been over turned ...sorry.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

is this the play with 3:10 left in the first half? If so then he was out of bounds not even close not sure what you guys are seeing. I have it recorded and he gets Possession with one foot on the ground second foot way out of bounds.

Get rid of your 13" trinitron.

My HDTV DVR 60" widescreen 1080i shows that he catches and has possession of the ball with his left foot down, then he takes a step with his right foot down in bounds (makes it a catch as he never loses control), and finally his next step his left foot is way out of bounds

 

[seven]

I had thought BB was saving the challenge,
Championship game, still early?
Gave them the benefit of the doubt that they were in control, on top of it.
that is the pattern, really.


It was also not really dwelled on in the coverage, 1 replay i think?
Seemed to me he had one foot down as he caught it, then the other.

The end zone snuff by Moore on Evans was darn close.
Surprised the ravens aren't complaining about that too.
Maybe the "Catching consultant" will speak up soon?

 

[Trocadile]

It was definitely a catch. Esiason showed the replay during the halftime show and agreed the Patriots would have won the challenge. The problem was that the network didn't show the best angle until late in the play clock and that is what the guys upstairs have to go on.

BB does tend to be overly conservative with his challenges. This and the Gronkowski touchdown (that should have been) against Pitt being two of the most glaring misses this season.

 

[PATSNUTme]

With my homer glasses on he was in bounds. With them off, it was too close to challenge and I doubt if it would have been overturned.

Had he been ruled in bounds and the Ravens challenged, I doubt if that would have been overturned.

 

[RodThePat]

Horrible decision by Belichick not challenging the play. Could have been a huge momentum swing in the game. Kind of funny how Brady's best pass of the day was an incompletion.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Etch it in stone. 60" Sharp LED at 720p. Freeze frame, ball in hands, left foot down. Took it one frame further. Ball in hands, Left toe still down.

It was split second close but two hands on ball and left toe down.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

agreed. I thought in frame by frame it was clear he had the ball and the foot down still.

As already pointed out, even if the replay ref disagreed, not much to lose, but a lot to gain, I thought.

The second shot angle was played on tv-totally clear his foot was in and must have been seen on the big screen or up in the boxes-personnel should have called down to the sidelines for BB to challenge but the FG team was out-too fast

 

[PatsFanSince74]

yeah, even santz and nimms thought he was in, as did I when I saw the real time replay from the sideline angle, let alone the slomo. it's not even close and there's no doubt that he had the ball secured and two feet in bounds.

somebody in the Pats booth was asleep at the switch. "no harm, no foul," but it could have cost us the game.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's another reason why I was so perplexed as to why he didn't throw the flag: It would have been a HUGE 1st down instead of having to punt. BB has shown over the years that he's more interested in challenging a cricital play, even if a long shot, rather than worry about having enough 'evidence' to throw the flag confidently. It seemed that was the PERFECT critical spot where he'd throw the flag almost without thought, yet it didn't seem like he was even considering it. Very out of character.

Huh? BB never throws a the challenge flag when there isn't evidence to overturn just because it would have been a big play if it went the other way. Many coaches do that, but BB never has. Its a waste, and they seem to do it because they wish they got the play so instead of being smart they throw it emotionally.
Its not just the timeout you lose, its also the 3rd challenge.
On this play it looked close, but I've never seen a catch called in bounds because a foot was ruled down while catching, it usually requires 2 in bounds feet landing after control. The back foot down first is rarely ever called.
Also, how can you tell whether it seemed like he was considering it? Does he stand a certain way while considering a challenge? That reminds me of the Bobby Knight gameface response.

 

[Ring 6]

yeah, even santz and nimms thought he was in, as did I when I saw the real time replay from the sideline angle, let alone the slomo. it's not even close and there's no doubt that he had the ball secured and two feet in bounds.

somebody in the Pats booth was asleep at the switch. "no harm, no foul," but it could have cost us the game.

I don't think it was clear at all, in fact, I think the call on the field would have been upheld.

 

[supafly]

I don't think it was clear at all, in fact, I think the call on the field would have been upheld.

I think you may be right about the call being upheld.

We've seen plenty of other instances where BB has not bothered to challenge a play if there is not good enough evidence, and I really don't see this being any different.

However, in this particular scenario I believe he should have taken a chance. It was only the first challenge, and he would've had one more just in case. It could've been the deciding point of the game, or at least one of the bigger plays anyway.

If it would've been the 2nd challenge, then I could understand him not wanting to take the chance. Since the implications of the game were very important, I think that he could've taken a chance.

I think it's just as much about timeouts with Bill as it is with losing the 3rd challenge, probably more. His thinking is that the potential of a lost timeout could have come back to haunt them late in the 4th quarter, needing to stop the clock. That is certainly understandable thinking, so I won't pretend to second guess him.

 

[Ring 6]

I think you may be right about the call being upheld.

We've seen plenty of other instances where BB has not bothered to challenge a play if there is not good enough evidence, and I really don't see this being any different.

However, in this particular scenario I believe he should have taken a chance. It was only the first challenge, and he would've had one more just in case. It could've been the deciding point of the game, or at least one of the bigger plays anyway.

If it would've been the 2nd challenge, then I could understand him not wanting to take the chance. Since the implications of the game were very important, I think that he could've taken a chance.
I agree the timeout has value, but at that point is could have been given up without much worry.

I think it's just as much about timeouts with Bill as it is with losing the 3rd challenge, probably more. His thinking is that the potential of a lost timeout could have come back to haunt them late in the 4th quarter, needing to stop the clock. That is certainly understandable thinking, so I won't pretend to second guess him.

Why challenge if you wont win it?
Losing that challenge is a vital loss. Now you have 1 challenge left all game.
Saving it means you have 3 left, if the 1st 2 go your way.
Thats a big advantage/disadvantage to take into the 2nd half of a tight game.
How would we be feeling if he challenged that one and lost, then used a good challenge in the 3rd and won it, but couldn't challenge a bad call on a turnover in the 4th quarter? Coiuld cost you a game.

 

[supafly]

Why challenge if you wont win it?
Losing that challenge is a vital loss. Now you have 1 challenge left all game.
Saving it means you have 3 left, if the 1st 2 go your way.
Thats a big advantage/disadvantage to take into the 2nd half of a tight game.
How would we be feeling if he challenged that one and lost, then used a good challenge in the 3rd and won it, but couldn't challenge a bad call on a turnover in the 4th quarter? Coiuld cost you a game.

Yeah, there are certainly plenty of reasons to look at it both ways.

I think that BB does a pretty good job with the challenges, particularly this season.

I can see reasons for both arguments, but at the end of the day I think it comes down to not having a clear enough look at evidence that would've been in our favor.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

They asked him on weei yesterday why he didnt challenge and he simply said it didnt look like a catch. Like Andy said it was close and might not have been overturned so I see why he didnt do it.

 

[Gumby]

Here is the only link I saw on YouTube.

Unreal Catch by Rob Gronkowski - 2011 AFC Championship Game, Patriots vs. Ravens - YouTube

It doesnt give that much clarity. You could credit him with control with left foot down or not.

if you pause at 7s, 8s, 13s, 14s, 15s, those are the segments through the catch you can try to determine foot down or not. But I can't really tell with the depth perception video of a tv allows and the camera angles never give you full picture of hands, ball, and feet, sidelines all at same time.

Notice the linesman is running in from behind. So he can't tell when Gronk has control (shielded by Gronk). any other ref in the middle of endzone is shielded by the Defender. So the call on the field is understandable.

Bottom line is Gronk had a chance to toe-drag to make it emphatic AND HE DIDNT. That is why he is a TE and not a WR.