How bad was the holding penalty by Gronk?

[letekro]

That disregards any nuance whatsoever. If similar examples of holding were not being flagged all game (what everyone calls 'letting them play') then singling out one event for strict adherence to the rule becomes a competitive disadvantage for the team this one event is called on. That should not be termed a "good" call.

However, to your post after this, I agree. Bad call, ticky tack call or good call, it happens to all teams. It was absolutely on the Patriots to execute the next play(s) -- and the fact they didn't to a degree to win is the critical point (IMHO).

I don't want the officials to be versed in any kind of "nuance"--in your words--because I prefer to limit their ability to make judgment calls. I want them to call holding when a guy is prevented from reaching for a tackle because his jersey is being held. They called this twice against the Cardinals---1 against Jones and 1 against Wilfork--and once against the Pats. Why would anyone have a problem with this?

 

[Rob0729]

The call is almost never called by the real refs.

But I think the real call that was actually worse and just as costly, was the false start call on Aiken on the field goal attempt. Clearly there was no false start and the correct call would have been offsides on the Cards and would have given the Pats a first and goal on the seven. That might have been the difference in the game because the Pats might have scored a TD there instead of the field goal.

 

[letekro]

The call is almost never called by the real refs.

A blatant hold right at the point of attack is never called by the "real refs"? Then, why do we want them back again?

 

[Batman]

It wasn't that good of a hold it was leaning a lot to the right hence the kick going right. The snap was too far right too which made it tough to get down.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't want the officials to be versed in any kind of "nuance"--in your words--because I prefer to limit their ability to make judgment calls. I want them to call holding when a guy is prevented from reaching for a tackle because his jersey is being held. They called this twice against the Cardinals---1 against Jones and 1 against Wilfork--and once against the Pats. Why would anyone have a problem with this?

There is holding on every play. This is acknowledged by both offensive and defensive players. Officials have even tutored the players on what degree of holding will be allowed and what won't (i.e. inside the frame). If the NFL followed your lead and eliminated "nuance", every single play in an NFL game would be nullified by a holding penalty, and the NFL would cease to exist as an entity because it would be unable to play games.

 

[ivanvamp]

Let's put it this way: That hold by Gronk was *FAR* less egregious than on this play, but one was called and the other wasn't.

The best play on super bowl XLII - YouTube

Gggrrrrrrrrrrrr......

 

[ivanvamp]

The call is almost never called by the real refs.

But I think the real call that was actually worse and just as costly, was the false start call on Aiken on the field goal attempt. Clearly there was no false start and the correct call would have been offsides on the Cards and would have given the Pats a first and goal on the seven. That might have been the difference in the game because the Pats might have scored a TD there instead of the field goal.

Aiken clearly flinched his hands a little. It was enough so that four Cardinals all jumped offside. If he did nothing, maybe one guy jumps offside, but not four. He moved.

 

[JJDChE]

the aiken false start was blatant. that gets called 100% of the time. the center can't flinch the ball.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I've watched it a couple of times now and looked at photos. It was clearly a Hold. The photo from the front shows that Gronk is grabbing the jersey of the Cardinals' defender. Gronkowski as much as admits that he was holding when he says that he wondered whether his hands were inside or outside as he did it.

While it looks like the kind of "Hold" that players get away with all the time, I think the fact that it occurred at the point where Woodhead breaks loose for the Goal Line probably came into play.

I don't think we can blame it for the loss.

 

[JMarr]

Let's put it this way: That hold by Gronk was *FAR* less egregious than on this play, but one was called and the other wasn't.

The best play on super bowl XLII - YouTube

Gggrrrrrrrrrrrr......

Jeez, why did you go there? Could be the first time I've seen it since and it's OT, but WTF was Sanders doing there? He should have lit up Tyree like a Christmas tree.

 

[Rob0729]

Aiken clearly flinched his hands a little. It was enough so that four Cardinals all jumped offside. If he did nothing, maybe one guy jumps offside, but not four. He moved.

He's allowed to adjust his hands on the ball.

 

[Rob0729]

A blatant hold right at the point of attack is never called by the "real refs"? Then, why do we want them back again?

Mike Pereria said on 98.5 today that when he was in charge of officials, he would have graded that call a margin call when grading his staff. A margin call grade is a grade that says to the ref, technically you were right but don't ever call that penalty again or it will go against you. He felt the infraction was so marginal and similar infractions happen on every play. So they train the refs not to throw the flags in that situation.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

There is holding on every play. This is acknowledged by both offensive and defensive players. Officials have even tutored the players on what degree of holding will be allowed and what won't (i.e. inside the frame). If the NFL followed your lead and eliminated "nuance", every single play in an NFL game would be nullified by a holding penalty, and the NFL would cease to exist as an entity because it would be unable to play games.

Exactly what my reply would have said. Thanks for saving me the trouble...

 

[QuantumMechanic]

FWIW, Bruschi said on his ESPNBoston.com chat today that he thought it was a hold.

 

[italia44]

To me,the arguement is not whether it was a hold,but Gronk's stupidity......ergo,that he never should have been risking a holding call.

This is about field position on the Woodhead run...That's the thing Gronk had a brain cramp about.If kerry rhodes had tackled woody at the spot of Gronkowski's hold,it still would have been an immense yardage and first down gain for the patriots.......The touchdown would have been basically gravy,imho.

This was just p-ss-poor situational awareness by Gronk....get in the tackler's way,but don't risk putting your hands on him.

Ghost missed,but the 2 penaties on Gronk were more egregious.

 

[Deus Irae]

To me,the arguement is not whether it was a hold,but Gronk's stupidity......ergo,that he never should have been risking a holding call.

This is about field position on the Woodhead run...That's the thing Gronk had a brain cramp about.If kerry rhodes had tackled woody at the spot of Gronkowski's hold,it still would have been an immense yardage and first down gain for the patriots.......The touchdown would have been basically gravy,imho.

This was just p-ss-poor situational awareness by Gronk....get in the tackler's way,but don't risk putting your hands on him.

Ghost missed,but the 2 penaties on Gronk were more egregious.

It's not a call that's made with real officials. That being the case, what "risk" was he supposedly taking?

 

[Wilfork#75]

It's not a call that's made with real officials. That being the case, what "risk" was he supposedly taking?

How can you say its not a call that 'real officials' make when it was the right call and a good call. It's not the level of holding that is the issue, because it wasn't a bad hold, and on the other side of the field it would never get called. But it is the significant impact of the infraction that is the reason it was called. People can cry and complain the that those holds happen every game without being called, which is true. But the difference is those situations the hold isn't directly responsible for a significant play. If it has no impact on the play, sure let it go. If it directly results in a big play and a game winning play, then you have to call it.

If thats not a call made by 'real' officials maybe we don't need them back. I think we need to stop trying to make excuses and blame someone else and face the fact that we played and coached like **** on offense and in key special teams moments. Now we move on and look to improve for next week.

 

[Deus Irae]

How can you say its not a call that 'real officials' make...

From another thread:

Pereira just weighed in on this, on 98.5. When asked about it, he said he'd reviewed it again and he called it marginal at best, said that if he was grading for it, it would get an MC (which is where he'd defend the call as barely technically correct but would tell the official never to make that call again), and would expect that no regular officials would call it. He also said that the hand outside the frame was barely there and was really not enough to call it while being technically correct.

In other words, the former top dog of officials in the NFL disagrees with you and agrees with what most of the rest of us have been saying...

 

[Joker]

I agree with Italia and I agree with Deus in his followup...and tonight we saw the freakin' "ref" (I'm being overly generous) give Indy TEN YARDS on a five yard penalty...why???...well...because down there at Humptydumplington University in the Wackenhutt Valley League Division Two, that IS a ten yard penalty...jeezus krist I'm so way over the line on this idiotic ref job action I want to go up to the Razor and picket the braindead GoodNFL...

"I will bring the game into the 21st century!!!!"

yeah...newsflash, Rog...it's 21st century AD...not BC

 

[Wilfork#75]

Originally Posted by Deus Irae
Pereira just weighed in on this, on 98.5. When asked about it, he said he'd reviewed it again and he called it marginal at best, said that if he was grading for it, it would get an MC (which is where he'd defend the call as barely technically correct but would tell the official never to make that call again), and would expect that no regular officials would call it. He also said that the hand outside the frame was barely there and was really not enough to call it while being technically correct.

In other words, the former top dog of officials in the NFL disagrees with you and agrees with what most of the rest of us have been saying...

While that might be easy for him to say in hindsight, there is no way of knowing what the refs would have called on the field, in real time. And its not the significance of the hold that is the issue, its the significant result of the infraction that got it called. If Woodhead isn't three yards away from the defender as it happened, it probably doesn't get called. But that hold, as minor as it was, had a major impact on the defenders ability to make a play, which means you have to call it. And if we were on defense and it wasn't called, there would be even more outrage for it not being a hold. People are upset and angry because a call went against us. I get it, we are all passionate Pats fans here. But objectively, it was the right call and a stupid mistake by Gronk.