Confused about defensive holding...

[DarrylS]

While there seems to be the focus on whether or not Kuechly interfered with Gronk, and that seems subjective... was he guilty of defensive holding??

NFL Rules Digest: Use of Hands, Arms, and Body

A defensive player may not tackle or hold an opponent other than a runner. Otherwise, he may use his hands, arms, or body only:

Exception: An eligible receiver is considered to be an obstructing opponent ONLY to a point five yards beyond the line of scrimmage unless the player who receives the snap clearly demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball. Within this five-yard zone, a defensive player may chuck an eligible player in front of him. A defensive player is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone until a point when the receiver is even with the defender. The defensive player cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an eligible receiver in a manner that restricts movement as the play develops. Beyond this five-yard limitation, a defender may use his hands or arms ONLY to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. In such reaction, the defender may not contact a receiver who attempts to take a path to evade him.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Plus I believe that defensive holding is not subject to being reversed based opon whether the ball is catchable. That is because the call is holding if the contact occurs before the ball is thrown, so the catchability of a ball yet to be thrown is unknowable.

But in this case the ball had clearly been thrown. It was in the air so it was pass interference rather than holding. It was called and then the ref who called it lacked the stones to stand up for it.

Classic case of refs trying to change the interpretation of the rule based on the time left that is on the clock. That is PI for the prior 59 minutes and 57 seconds of that game or any other game. Because it's the last play, though, anything goes. Really?

 

[IllegalContact]

illegal contact is another penalty that could be called on that, no?

 

[DarrylS]

Clearly Kuechly impeded the progress of Gronk as he tried to reverse his direction... he was hanging on and riding him towards the endline..

He probably could not have caught the ball, but clearly Kuechly violated that a "defensive player may not tackle or hold an opponent"....

Still do not get it.. my memory seems to recall other plays where defensive holding occurred away from the ball on a defensive player who was guarding an offensive player the ball was not thrown to...

Another point of view which negates my thought...

http://www.patspulpit.com/2013/11/19/5121100/rules-breaking-down-the-final-play

 

[ivanvamp]

illegal contact is another penalty that could be called on that, no?

Yes, that would have worked too. Three penalty options (though I understand that holding is off the table once the ball is in the air) available to the refs, and he actually threw a flag, but there's no actual penalty? It's ridiculous.

As for "uncatchable"? I guess this means that a defensive player just needs to tackle a receiver and drag him far enough away from the ball that it would be uncatchable. Well, no friggin duh! If the defender bear hugs a receiver and moves him away from the ball so that it's uncatchable, is that OK? Really?

 

[ivanvamp]

Clearly Kuechly impeded the progress of Gronk as he tried to reverse his direction... he was hanging on and riding him towards the endline..

He probably could not have caught the ball, but clearly Kuechly violated that a "defensive player may not tackle or hold an opponent"....

Still do not get it.. my memory seems to recall other plays where defensive holding occurred away from the ball on a defensive player who was guarding an offensive player the ball was not thrown to...

Another point of view which negates my thought...

Rules: Breaking Down the Final Play - Pats Pulpit

Look at these two pictures:



And



You can see that the point at which the mugging takes place is within arm's reach of where the interception occurred. In other words, if there was no mugging, Gronk absolutely has a chance to get the ball. No way that's "clearly uncatchable".

 

[IllegalContact]

Yes, that would have worked too. Three penalty options (though I understand that holding is off the table once the ball is in the air) available to the refs, and he actually threw a flag, but there's no actual penalty? It's ridiculous.

As for "uncatchable"? I guess this means that a defensive player just needs to tackle a receiver and drag him far enough away from the ball that it would be uncatchable. Well, no friggin duh! If the defender bear hugs a receiver and moves him away from the ball so that it's uncatchable, is that OK? Really?

even so.......defensive holding and illegal contact don't require for the ball to be catchable. they call both on the other side of the field from the play at times

 

[oldskool138]

You can see that the point at which the mugging takes place is within arm's reach of where the interception occurred. In other words, if there was no mugging, Gronk absolutely has a chance to get the ball. No way that's "clearly uncatchable".

It's also not underthrown. Was it low? Sure but certainly not an egregious underthrow.

 

[IllegalContact]

Look at these two pictures:



And



You can see that the point at which the mugging takes place is within arm's reach of where the interception occurred. In other words, if there was no mugging, Gronk absolutely has a chance to get the ball. No way that's "clearly uncatchable".

I think you'll see some kind of acknowledgement/apology

Lucy has some splaining to do

 

[dales804]

Kuechly committed PI. Was it unlikely Gronk would have caught the ball? Yes. But Kuechly's interference took away all chance he had to catch it. The ref saying it was uncatchable is BS. So because a defender has a chance to intercept a pass, it renders the ball uncatchable? What if it sailed through the DB's arms (as they aren't known for their hands) and Gronk wasn't interfered with and dove to the ground and managed to catch it? But that never had a chance because of Kuechly.

 

[SacPete1]

The explanation from the head ref went something like: "The interference occurred at roughly the same time the ball was being intercepted" . This wasn't his exact wording but this is how they determined that the ball was not catchable.
Two points on this:
1. This statement is not factual. The pictures clearly show that the ball had not arrived when the interference occurred.
2. Who made this determination from 1? This is the big problem I have with this. If the ref that throws the flag sees interference, how does another who doesn't see the interference determine that the ball was being intercepted at the same time? The ref who throws the flag has to be the one to determine if the ball was catchable and this judgement has to go to the benefit of the receiver if its close.

I can accept missed calls or PI calls that are lame but I have a much tougher time with throwing a flag and then collectively deciding to pick it up when the basis for overruling it is completely false.

 

[BradyManny]

Gronk might've been held before the ball was released, even. He was held that long. I mean, the guy bear hugged him for five yards.

To determine that ball as uncatchable by Gronk is a disgusting choice by the ref. Gronkowski has made ridiculous catches throughout his career, and that's besides the point. The rule is in place when the ball is thrown out of play and under no circumstances could be caught, not for when the refs think it unlikely.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

This picture ends any discussion :

https://twitter.com/Nick_Underhill/status/402818924216975360/photo/1



Gronk was about a yard away from the guy who picked it off early on and was already being pushed back. Had the push not happened Gronk would have gotten up into the play and had a 50-50 shot at it. There is zero doubt this should have been a penalty.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

That looks like holding, The ref blew it, but lets not turn into Saints fans here. We need to beat Manning somehow next week, that's all i care about.

 

[DarrylS]

Even MMQB disagrees with the call....

Even Steve Young stated, “How can you compete for the ball if you’re being held from the ball?”

New England Patriots-Carolina Panthers marred by officials' bad call | The MMQB with Peter King

1. Blakeman blew it. A ref’s job on a play of that magnitude is not only to make the call his officials see fit, but to explain it. It’s not Blakeman’s call. Blakeman was a good 25 to 30 yards away, watching Brady in the pocket, when Miles’ flag flew, and Blakeman, as any referee does, has to rely on the officials on the scene to tell him the correct ruling in their area.

2. Then Gerry Austin blew it..... Luke Kuechly made contact with Gronkowski while not playing the ball, and it restricted Gronkowski’s opportunity to make the catch.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

note that Gronk is already leaning back toward the field at this frame, on his left leg, with the right leg extended out, trying to stop. He was trying stick right there, where the ball came down.

 

[Schnit]

note that Gronk is already leaning back toward the field at this frame, on his left leg, with the right leg extended out, trying to stop. He was trying stick right there, where the ball came down.

Exactly, he might not have made the catch but he clearly could have stopped and been in the vicinity

 

[dales804]

Exactly, he might not have made the catch but he clearly could have stopped and been in the vicinity

Basically, the "uncatchable" crap the ref was saying is just not true and people who think otherwise are just Pats haters. It was PI, clear as day.

But they can't do anything about it now and still have DEN coming in on Sunday. An apology from the NFL or anyone else doesn't change anything and won't do anything to improve the officiating.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

Wiggy made a good point.

If that was the right call, then just grab the guy if he starts to change direction on a comeback route and pull him as far away from the throw as possible or....

I'll say that if that's the case, pull the receivers out of the end zone...

If it wasn't interference, it was holding...either way, there's a penalty there or the entire set of NFL rules is invalid

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If it wasn't interference, it was holding...either way, there's a penalty there or the entire set of NFL rules is invalid

It can't be holding. Both the illegal contact and defensive holding restrictions end once (among other things) the QB releases the ball.

The only available penalty is defensive pass interference. So it's that or nothing.