Instant Replay Calls in Denver Game

[DaBruinz]

I don't know about anyone else, but I felt that both calls should have been reversed.

From what I saw, Gronk had both his hands under the ball on his catch and it was clear that the ball never hit the ground.

On Thomas' catch, the ball clearly hit the ground before he had control..

 

[brdmaverick]

I think in general refs have been overturning less challenges this year.

The Gronk one was especially painful because he KNEW he caught and the replay did NOT show it EVER hit the ground, but because the ball is out of sight at one point the refs couldn't definitely say that it never hit the ground. That's why that was super painful. I think they got it wrong. I think they KNOW they got it wrong, but based on the letter of law on replays they couldn't change it. It's unfortunate because they ROBBED Gronk of a spectacular catch.

I think they got the Thomas catch right. I don't ever see it hit the ground. At one point it 'feel's like it is going to hit the ground because he loses control a bit but it actually hits his other hand and stays on top of that.

Just my take

 

[JMC00]

I get why they didn't overturn the TD because there wasn't a shot where you definitively saw ball touching turf but not overturning Gronk's catch when pretty much every angle showed the ball on his arm was ********

 

[patchick]

It seemed to me that neither play would have been reversed, regardless of which way it was originally called.

I'm pretty sure Gronk had a clean catch, but there was a key moment hidden from the cameras. And I strongly suspect that Thomas's catch hit the ground, but there was a key moment hidden from the cameras. I can't really fault the ref for either decision, given the standard of "indisputable visual evidence." In legal terms, there was a preponderance of evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[GoBlue]

You have to wonder what the ref though when he called Gronks catch. Nobody else saw it hit the ground and he probably didn't either. So if he didn't see it hit the ground why did he call it that way

 

[mosi]

I thought the officiating was terrible last night. Some of those calls against the Pats were just BS. Gilmores first holding call for example. And the PI against Cooks were Harris was holding his hand for 3-5 seconds.

 

[Joker]

Screw that cheating horseface scumbag "empire" of continuous rat ba$tard cheating. The Patriots have been getting screwed in that shythole for DECADES and the ultimate scumbag Crapdell has never uttered a peep about "integrity of the game". "key moment hidden from the camera"?????????? In what other ****in' game played anywhere does THIS "hidden moment" happen? It's orchestrated, outright , SANCTIONED BY TURDELL chicanery. Sick of this bending over backwards to protect, deflect and rationalize OUTRIGHT SCUMBAGGERY!

 

[RobertWeathers]

I thought the officiating was terrible last night. Some of those calls against the Pats were just BS. Gilmores first holding call for example. And the PI against Cooks were Harris was holding his hand for 3-5 seconds.

Officiating in general is erratic and last night was no different

The Gilmore hold was awful.

Gronk's catch looked like a catch but I get why they didn't reverse it. Even I'm not 100% sure a tiny part of the ball didn't hit the ground.

Thomas's catch also seemed to hit the ground but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[PatsDeb]

They were both good catches and Gronk's should have been overturned. He was adamant in his post-game presser that he caught the ball and it never touched the ground. I think it was pretty clear from all the angles that there was no shot of it hitting the ground and he should have been awarded that TD catch. Thomas's catch looked much the same, but he got the call initially (that Gronk should have gotten).

 

[Triumph]

Walt Coleman is turning on us.

Gronk caught the ball. Ernie Adams saw the same thing. Replays at the game sucked.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

What bothers me is that there doesn't seem to be a standard to the way these are called on the field. This is also a problem with fumbles. It feels like they're trying to get it perfect opposed to just calling what they see. I say rule it a catch or fumble unless you clearly see something that makes it not. Stop trying to correctly guess what happened.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I think in general refs have been overturning less challenges this year.

The refs aren't overturning or confirming anything this year.

Remember, all reviews are done by NFL Central. The on-field ref is there to answer questions that NFL Central has and to give his input. But the on-field ref has zero decision-making authority on reviews.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You have to wonder what the ref though when he called Gronks catch. Nobody else saw it hit the ground and he probably didn't either. So if he didn't see it hit the ground why did he call it that way

He saw the ball bobble and assumed it hit the ground. I certainly thought it was incomplete at full speed.

 

[luuked]

I dont think I can blame any of the refs for both.. the on field calls and instant replay calls yesterday.

Yes, Gronk caught that ball but try to discern that at full speed. When it takes 2-3 angles of ultra slow motion to see that in all likelihood the ball never touched the ground how can I expect a human to make a decision on it ? Personally, I would have called it a catch and let the TD review process sort it out but that is just opening pandoras box because then refs will start calling everything initially a TD with the burden of proof shifting to show with 100% certainty that it was not a TD.

I think the key to a lot of issues we have right now is a rule overhaul of what a catch means and making it more black and white even if it means more incompletions.

 

[363839]

He saw the ball bobble and assumed it hit the ground. I certainly thought it was incomplete at full speed.

I'm pretty sure they are not supposed to assume anything.

 

[WhoaDirty]

While the Pats were on the wrong side of a few calls (the Gronk initial ruling was unfortunate), I'm not going to complain much about a game in which the Pats only had one accepted penalty for 5 yards (versus 5-28 for the Donks).

 

[IllegalContact]

I don't know about anyone else, but I felt that both calls should have been reversed.

From what I saw, Gronk had both his hands under the ball on his catch and it was clear that the ball never hit the ground.

On Thomas' catch, the ball clearly hit the ground before he had control..

ya well......no.....neither was indisputable

NEXT!

 

[borg]

You have to wonder what the ref though when he called Gronks catch. Nobody else saw it hit the ground and he probably didn't either. So if he didn't see it hit the ground why did he call it that way

The ball shifted position while in Gronk's grasp....and though no clean visual was available to discern whether the shift was due to the ground or Gronk's hand hitting the ground with the ball in it....I am assuming this ball shift provided the refs with enough doubt ....therefore the incomplete call stood. I would have called it the same. And like another poster wrote, if the call was a completion, I would have agreed ....completion.

Holding by the Denver DBs was rampant this game . Cooks got screwed....and a behind-the-goalpost field level camera showed a speeding Gronk running a post pattern directly toward the camera and not one but two Bronco DBs grabbed Gronks wrists at different times during the pattern. No call....and Gronk shrugged it off as just the way things are for the big guy.

 

[Calhoun44]

The call that bothered me was the 3rd and 1 Brady sneak. they spotted the ball where Brady's knee went down and ignored the rule that says he isn't down until touched by a defender. I am pretty sure he still hasn't been touched by a Denver player since that play.

 

[ALP]

exact same plays, i dont blame replays, whichever way they were called, each play would have stood

2 gripes
-on Gronk's one, should have been called catch outright
-on second one, after replay review, ref said "play confirmed"...and there was no evidence that it did not hit the ground, it was "play stands" the video didn't confirm jack s***