Instant Replay Calls in Denver Game

[Joker]

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.

and WHO, pray tell, holds ultimate sway like a cross between Josef Stalin and Benito Mussolini at 345 PARK AVENUE?

Time to oust this goon and his article 46 tweaks and cheat scams.

 

[TommyD4207]

I thought they were both catches.

I think the fact that there is this much differing opinion just in this thread sorta tells me 'Stands as Called' was the right way to go by the refs.

 

[BradyFTW!]

They both looked like catches to me. Or at least, with DT's, I didn't see any basis for overturning the call on the field. Gronk's was obviously a catch though, and should have been overturned easily.

 

[GoBlue]

Allowing the receiver and the defender to get handzie with each other just makes it easier on the ref and replay official to make whatever call they want or ignore it.

 

[rochrist]

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..

No way was there conclusive enough proof to reverse the Gronk call. There just wasn't.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Two super close plays where the difference between hitting the ground causing it to move or hitting against the hand and staying off the ground was tiny and split second.

The refereeing sucks sometimes but on these two calls it was so close that it's hard to fault the refs or the replay. Better solution is Gilmore gets his hand in there a 1/2 second sooner and Brady throws the ball 6 inches higher/Gronk cradles it upward quicker. Always best to not allow it to go to a ref-replay decision.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Given perhaps the most controversial reversal this season (the Jets' touchdown -> fumble out of bounds) went in the Pats' favor, it's hard to think of all this as some anti-Patriots Goodell-inspired conspiracy.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

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.

There was definitely a lot of touching in there

 

[DaBruinz]

No way was there conclusive enough proof to reverse the Gronk call. There just wasn't.

How is it not "conclusive" evidence that both his hands were under the ball the entire time?

Seriously, I wonder what people are actually watching. The Replays clearly showed that Gronk's hands were UNDER the ball the entire time. There is no possible way that the ball could have touched the ground.

On the DT play, it's clear that he doesn't have control of the ball when he hits the ground and the ball hits the ground before he actually gets control.

The ball is only allowed to touched the ground if it's in the receiver's control.

 

[rochrist]

How is it not "conclusive" evidence that both his hands were under the ball the entire time?

Seriously, I wonder what people are actually watching. The Replays clearly showed that Gronk's hands were UNDER the ball the entire time. There is no possible way that the ball could have touched the ground.

On the DT play, it's clear that he doesn't have control of the ball when he hits the ground and the ball hits the ground before he actually gets control.

The ball is only allowed to touched the ground if it's in the receiver's control.

We'll agree to disagree. On my 46 inch HD tv, I could not tell whether after he had his hands under it, the ground helped him control it. And if I were doing replays and I was trying to be honest, I would have said not conclusive.

 

[CelticPatriot]

I personally hate that the call made on the field by the ref in real time is at all considered by the replay officials. Gronks catch on camera is a clear catch, one look shows that but because the camera misses the ball for like a second and you can't be 1 million percent sure then you just go with what the guy seen in real time at full speed. Replay officials shouldn't be told what the ref called initially and should just go on what they see

 

[QuantumMechanic]

and WHO, pray tell, holds ultimate sway like a cross between Josef Stalin and Benito Mussolini at 345 PARK AVENUE?

Time to oust this goon and his article 46 tweaks and cheat scams.

Alberto Riveron, the SVP of Officiating.
Alberto Riveron - Wikipedia

He, unlike Blandinko, at least was an actual ref.

 

[DaBruinz]

We'll agree to disagree. On my 46 inch HD tv, I could not tell whether after he had his hands under it, the ground helped him control it. And if I were doing replays and I was trying to be honest, I would have said not conclusive.

If you couldn't tell if his hands were under it then you just weren't paying attention because two different replays clearly showed his hands together under the ball.

 

[rochrist]

If you couldn't tell if his hands were under it then you just weren't paying attention because two different replays clearly showed his hands together under the ball.

Yes, that was it. I totally wasn't paying attention. It's unpossible anyone could possibly reach a different conclusion than you did unless they weren't paying attention. I'm sure the announcers agreeing with me is because they all have a vicious anti-Patriots agenda too!

 

[Gumby]

Does anyone have a link to the play (Gronk "bobble") to see it specifically again. It gets all kind of discussion, but is not in any highlights that I see.

 

[brdmaverick]

How is it not "conclusive" evidence that both his hands were under the ball the entire time?

I feel 99% sure that it was a catch and that both of his hands were under the ball, the only problem is that the ball is not visible to the camera (during a part of the catch sequence).

While I know he caught that ball, by ruling the pass incomplete it's like a ref essentially saying "I SAW THAT BALL HIT THE GROUND."

If you can't see the ball for a crucial part of the catch sequence (even though it's likely he had it under control), how can you definitely call discredit what the ref said he saw?

Tough call because I think it was the wrong one..........but oddly the right one based on the letter of the law.

 

[Ring 6]

No way was there conclusive enough proof to reverse the Gronk call. There just wasn't.

There is nothing showing the ball hit the ground. What more do you need?

 

[Ring 6]

I feel 99% sure that it was a catch and that both of his hands were under the ball, the only problem is that the ball is not visible to the camera (during a part of the catch sequence).

While I know he caught that ball, by ruling the pass incomplete it's like a ref essentially saying "I SAW THAT BALL HIT THE GROUND."

If you can't see the ball for a crucial part of the catch sequence (even though it's likely he had it under control), how can you definitely call discredit what the ref said he saw?

Tough call because I think it was the wrong one..........but oddly the right one based on the letter of the law.

It doesn’t matter whether it was under control at every point because it never hit the ground.

But what you allude to is an issue.
If you can’t get a camera angle to see the play you can’t overturn it.
This is important because I’ve seen cars where the ref obviously calls TD it turnover on a close play just because that makes it subject to review.

 

[brdmaverick]

@DaBruinz , @rochrist , @AndyJohnson and any others, I see this instant replay has brought up some good debate.

I'd love to get your take on another Gronk TD that was a close call. If you go to the 12:26 mark of the below link you'll see a replay of a Gronk TD (ruled a TD on the field). It is questionable as to whether or not the ground helped him catch the ball and whether or not the ball 'slightly moving' upon him hitting the ground qualifies as 'loss of control'. It was a ruled a TD on the field and stayed a TD upon review, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.




If you had to review the replay of this play without knowing the call on the field, how would you have ruled it?

 

[Ring 6]

@DaBruinz , @rochrist , @AndyJohnson and any others, I see this instant replay has brought up some good debate.

I'd love to get your take on another Gronk TD that was a close call. If you go to the 12:26 mark of the below link you'll see a replay of a Gronk TD (ruled a TD on the field). It is questionable as to whether or not the ground helped him catch the ball and whether or not the ball 'slightly moving' upon him hitting the ground qualifies as 'loss of control'. It was a ruled a TD on the field and stayed a TD upon review, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.




If you had to review the replay of this play without knowing the call on the field, how would you have ruled it?

You link is 2 hours and starts at opening kickoff.