Gronk was in bounds why no challege?

[Bostonian1962]

Water under the bridge, but TIVO'd the game, watched it again yesterday, and yes, he was in bounds. I've seen it over and over. BB should have thrown the flag, but they won, so it doesn't matter.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

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

You never can 100% know what the ref will overturn. Does the ref have time to look at it frame by frame by frame? Further, it was a close, split second play. But I had it up on the NFL replay tonight, in 720p on a 60" Sharp LED. The ball is pressed between both his giant mitts and his toe is down. So is the ball still vibrating around while the toe comes up? Check the wider angle. Gronk catches that ball like a steel trap.

Again I agree there is an unknown whether it would be overturned since the ref needs his own sense of certainty satisfied (and he doesn't have the time to work the replay to the degree I did). And while I agree that frivolous use of the challenge is not a good plan, I think this one, in hindsight, had good risk-value.

 

[sarge]

Like many of you I have it taped as well.

And when I go frame by frame, you can see his foot is on the ground when he catches it. It is on it's way up, but it had still not left the ground.

It would have been close because it is only for a fraction of a second, and I totally understand how the refs missed it.

But going frame by frame, you can see the ball in Gronks hand, and a few frames go by with the foot clearly on the ground.

I would have liked to have seen a challenge as well.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Mike Periera also commented after the game that if he'd been the ref on the field under the hood, he would have overturned the call. That's proof enough for me.

I know that the challenges are precious, but in a 1st half situation like this one where there's just not enough time to really see if he were in our out, why not burn a TO so you have time to really look at it?

 

[IllegalContact]

I want it explained to me

Ed Hochuli long Penalty explanation - YouTube

 

[mb6592]

Not sure what Andy's smoking, but it was obviously a catch - 100%. It's clear at 13 & 14 seconds that he has possession and his left foot down:

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


And you don't not throw the challenge flag just because you think the ref will f-ck up the overturn. 9 out of 10 times that will be overturned - and as others have already pointed out it was a huge point in the game and could have provided the Patriots with much needed momentum.

 

[patsfan13]

Since it could be worth 4 pts it was well worth a challenge. If it were for a 1st down on Pats 30 or something then no when it gives the opportunity for a TD rather than a FG you should challenge.

 

[groganbootleg]

Not sure what Andy's smoking, but it was obviously a catch - 100%. It's clear at 13 & 14 seconds that he has possession and his left foot down:

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


And you don't not throw the challenge flag just because you think the ref will f-ck up the overturn. 9 out of 10 times that will be overturned - and as others have already pointed out it was a huge point in the game and could have provided the Patriots with much needed momentum.

Absolutely a catch. I DVRed it during the game and couldn't believe they didn't challenge.

With 3:15 left in the 2nd Q and all your timeouts you absolutely throw the flag and challenge that call. Worst case scenario is that you lose a timeout you probably wont use anyway.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Absolutely a catch. I DVRed it during the game and couldn't believe they didn't challenge.

With 3:15 left in the 2nd Q and all your timeouts you absolutely throw the flag and challenge that call. Worst case scenario is that you lose a timeout you probably wont use anyway.

Agreed it was a catch as seen replayed on my HDTV. Although I fault the booth for not telling BB to challenge, they did not really have a timely replay to determine. The worse case is worse than you state. Worst case they lose the challenge. Possibly need another challenge later and then have zero challenges for a 4th QTR mis-call by the refs. Gotta be careful with challenges esp in a playoff game. That said, I agree with those who say the reward (POSSIBLE 4 its) was worth the risk here.

 

[Bostonian1962]

You never can 100% know what the ref will overturn. Does the ref have time to look at it frame by frame by frame? Further, it was a close, split second play. But I had it up on the NFL replay tonight, in 720p on a 60" Sharp LED. The ball is pressed between both his giant mitts and his toe is down. So is the ball still vibrating around while the toe comes up? Check the wider angle. Gronk catches that ball like a steel trap.

Again I agree there is an unknown whether it would be overturned since the ref needs his own sense of certainty satisfied (and he doesn't have the time to work the replay to the degree I did). And while I agree that frivolous use of the challenge is not a good plan, I think this one, in hindsight, had good risk-value.

Agree totally with you. I too watched it on a Sharp 60 inch, 240 HZ, flat screen. You said it exactly correctly - he caught the ball like a steel trap, left foot down. Next, his other foot was completely down and in bounds. Ball caught, one foot down, next foot down, and that's a catch.

I work in DC with a very biased Raven's fan. About an hour ago, he told me he watched it again, and "dude, I gotta admit, that was totally a catch". It would have been overturned, but in this league, I can never say absolutely, because some weird ***** happens, we all know.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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

Ah, the privilege of respectfully disagreeing in an open forum!

Have a good day and Go Pats!

 

[unoriginal]

Personally I'm going to disagree with practically every poster in this thread. Gronk does not catch that ball cleanly; in fact it goes through his hands and the nose bounces off his facemask. Doink. He doesn't have actual possession until that back foot is well off the ground.

I think a lot of people are missing this because Gronk's hands are so wide, and the rebound was controlled so well, that the motion of the ball is somewhat obscured.

Frankly if I was a Pats coach watching that in the booth, I'd feel that replay would be much closer to confirming the ruling on the field than letting it stand, to say nothing of overturning.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Personally I'm going to disagree with practically every poster in this thread. Gronk does not catch that ball cleanly; in fact it goes through his hands and the nose bounces off his facemask. Doink. He doesn't have actual possession until that back foot is well off the ground.

I think a lot of people are missing this because Gronk's hands are so wide, and the rebound was controlled so well, that the motion of the ball is somewhat obscured.

Frankly if I was a Pats coach watching that in the booth, I'd feel that replay would be much closer to confirming the ruling on the field than letting it stand, to say nothing of overturning.

who knows...you might be right. in any event, it's about as moot a point as a moot point can be moot.

 

[mb6592]

Personally I'm going to disagree with practically every poster in this thread. Gronk does not catch that ball cleanly; in fact it goes through his hands and the nose bounces off his facemask. Doink. He doesn't have actual possession until that back foot is well off the ground.

I think a lot of people are missing this because Gronk's hands are so wide, and the rebound was controlled so well, that the motion of the ball is somewhat obscured.

Frankly if I was a Pats coach watching that in the booth, I'd feel that replay would be much closer to confirming the ruling on the field than letting it stand, to say nothing of overturning.

Just watched again, funny didn't notice that little bounce off the facemask the last 30 times I watched the replay. Definitely debatable now, thus inconclusive. Apologies to Andy.