The fallacy of "uncatchable."

[1960Pats]

Upon further review...

The play that the defense made definitely looked like a designed play. The LB rode Gronk out of the play (being careful not to wrap him up with his arms) and the DB cut inside as that was happening, knowing that the ball would be heading in Gronk's direction.

 

[Fixit]

My favorite part about all of the people yelling "Uncatchable!" is this: If you showed this play to a hundred of them prior to Gerry Austin's sham of an explanation, not one of them would have mentioned an uncatchable ball.

 

[Kulko]

I've mostly gotten over the non-call, but this is eating at me.

We've all seen PI waved off because of an uncatchable ball, but those have always been on balls that are so far away or out of bounds that a receiver is physically incapable of catching up to it. Hence, "uncatchable."

But how in the world can a ball that would arrive within a guy's catch radius be uncatchable?

Take the defenders out of the play, for the moment. Could Brady's throw have been caught by Gronk, even in his Kuechly-aided position at the back of the end zone? Yes.

Put the defenders back in. Could the ball have squirted through the defender's hands and gotten to Gronk? Again, yes. In that case, we have what was ruled uncatchable becoming catchable.

What?

By this logic, any ball that is picked off negates PI. The interception apparently renders the ball uncatchable by the receiver, regardless of the accuracy of the throw or the activity of the defender.

That should make things pretty interestng.

Dont worry yourself over this, the ruling on the field is definitely not covered by the rulebook and existing calls. I remmeber at least 2 calls against us where interceptions have been called back because behind the interceptiuon our CB was obstructing the comeback route.

 

[Uncle Meat]

Oh, I know the pass interference rules. I've been watching football for about 35 years. I also know the holding rules. For example, look at how Nate Solder BLATANTLY holds Junior Galette on the Patriots winning touchdown pass against the Saints this year as time expired. That is holding, and there is no doubt about it. It wasn't called, and the Patriots win as a direct result because it's the end of the game.

Look at the bottom left-hand corner of this .gif, and it's as clear as day. This sort of evens things out when you consider what happened in the Panthers game, wouldn't you say? This should have been a 10-yard penalty, putting the Patriots on the Saints 27-yardline, down by 4 points with about 5 seconds left. Instead, the Patriots win.

Textbook example of holding right here:

 

[Uncle Meat]

I think this non-call actually affected the play more than it did in the Panthers game.

The refs call this OBVIOUS penalty, and the Patriots LOSE this game in week 6 instead of win as a direct result. So no Pats fans should be crying into their sleeves.

 

[Pat Riot]

Re: Re: The fallacy of "uncatchable."

I think this non-call actually affected the play more than it did in the Panthers game.

The refs call this OBVIOUS penalty, and the Patriots LOSE this game in week 6 instead of win as a direct result. So no Pats fans should be crying into their sleeves.

I ain't crying. That is an obvious penalty. This was a pi not a no call and the flag was picked up... Big diff!

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Oh, I know the pass interference rules. I've been watching football for about 35 years. I also know the holding rules. For example, look at how Nate Solder BLATANTLY holds Junior Galette on the Patriots winning touchdown pass against the Saints this year as time expired. That is holding, and there is no doubt about it. It wasn't called, and the Patriots win as a direct result because it's the end of the game.

Look at the bottom left-hand corner of this .gif, and it's as clear as day. This sort of evens things out when you consider what happened in the Panthers game, wouldn't you say? This should have been a 10-yard penalty, putting the Patriots on the Saints 27-yardline, down by 4 points with about 5 seconds left. Instead, the Patriots win.

Textbook example of holding right here:

Good point meathead, we should have won the super bowl in 07, I think every pass rusher was held trying to get to Eli.

 

[NSPF]

More of this simultaneous nonsense from NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino:


Dean Blandino: I wouldn?t say the officials got it wrong | ProFootballTalk

I love how they're changing their tune now. This feels like that Fail Mary play all over again. The NFL's incompetence in this is borderline embarrassing.

Dean Blandino must have the reflexes of a slug...

 

[Uncle Meat]

I ain't crying. That is an obvious penalty. This was a pi not a no call and the flag was picked up... Big diff!

What's fair is fair, right? Neither one of those non-calls were more unfair than the other, right? Neither team (the Saints nor the Patriots) were "cheated" any more that the other, right? In other words, both penalties (that weren't called in similar game situations) actually happened, right?

The difference is that Solder got beat, and Junior Galette sure looked like he had a great chance to disrupt Brady's pass if he was not blatantly held from the get-go...pulling on the jersey followed by the same type of love-hug. Meanwhile, Gronk sure didn't look like he really had much of a chance to catch that ball, did he? If you had to put a percentage on it, what would it be? How likely would it be for Gronk to catch that pass?

In other words, the non-call in the Saints game actually affected the play a hell of a lot more.

The difference is in the unfathomable tear-flow. Accept BOTH non-calls and shut the fck about the whole thing, because the refs did not decide anything about the Patriots' record this year. Bottom line. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Look at the no-calls themselves, don't rationalize it like a jive-ass turkey. The Panthers no-call isn't somehow validated any more just because a flag was thrown and then picked up. The Saints no-call happened too, and just as equally AT LEAST. Don't cut those corners in your logic. The truth is always true.

The end result is exactly the same. Things even out for the Patriots in these calls this year, and that's in the worst case scenario for the Pats. IMO, the Saints non-call was a lot worse, because the Pats were actually given 7 points on the play, when they should have had one play to score a TD from the 27-yardline or else lose the game instead. That's not what you would call a high-percentage proposition.

Meanwhile, giving the Patriots one more play on the Panthers 1 or 13-yardline hardly guarantees a win. The Panthers have one of the best front 7s in the game.

The irony of it all is that the Saints got screwed BOTH times, probably. If both these last-second penalties were called correctly, the Saints could very well be 3 games ahead of the Panthers instead of just one in the NFC South. The Saints are the only ones with the potential beef here.

 

[Joker]

The ref threw the flag on the Gronk play...there was no ref's flag and no crying for one on the Solder hold...how do you NOT see the HUGE difference...and then to use the uncalled SINGLE HOLD on that play and not even acknowledge the FOUR PHOTOGRAPHED holds in the Super Bowl, along with the acknowledgement that the NFL threatened and got all clips of the ESPN recording SHOWING O'Hara with his arm around Seymour's neck FROM BEHIND...how do you just gloss right over and by THAT??

oh wait...you're TROLLING....ha haha...oh, I get it...yeah, good one...

 

[robbomango]

Meathead?!

 

[Uncle Meat]

The ref threw the flag on the Gronk play...there was no ref's flag and no crying for one on the Solder hold...how do you NOT see the HUGE difference...and then to use the uncalled SINGLE HOLD on that play and not even acknowledge the FOUR PHOTOGRAPHED holds in the Super Bowl, along with the acknowledgement that the NFL threatened and got all clips of the ESPN recording SHOWING O'Hara with his arm around Seymour's neck FROM BEHIND...how do you just gloss right over and by THAT??

oh wait...you're TROLLING....ha haha...oh, I get it...yeah, good one...

Do you want me to watch every single play in Patriots history and create an in-depth encyclopedia of erroneous calls, weighing one against the other to measure how many went for or against them?

I'm talking about one single thing here, and I'll ask the question:

Do you think that the refs negatively affected the Patriots record THIS YEAR?

It's a very simple question. It's the ONLY question. Please answer it. If you just want to attack me instead, I'll just assume what the answer is...that you are unable to logically contradict my logic. You cannot contradict my logic. What I said is true.

Meathead?!

I really hope that you don't actually think that this is clever.

 

[Joker]

Do you want me to watch every single play in Patriots history and create an in-depth encyclopedia of erroneous calls, weighing one against the other to measure how many went for or against them?

I'm talking about one single thing here, and I'll ask the question:

Do you think that the refs negatively affected the Patriots record THIS YEAR?

It's a very simple question. It's the ONLY question. Please answer it. If you just want to attack me instead, I'll just assume what the answer is...that you are unable to logically contradict my logic. You cannot contradict my logic. What I said is true.



I really hope that you don't actually think that this is clever.

you're asking THAT question? On a Patriots board?..after the Jets call AND this call/then no call in Carolina? you're trolling...or you're drunk.

 

[Uncle Meat]

you're asking THAT question? On a Patriots board?..after the Jets call AND this call/then no call in Carolina? you're trolling...or you're drunk.

No, these are all real questions. I've been through the whole "trolling" issue with you before.

Apparently, you cannot follow simple logic.

If the Nate Solder hold was not called, and the Patriots beat the Saints as a result, how can you be so chagrined about the Carolina no-call, where the Panthers win as a result? That's the basic gist, which you do not want to address...you'd rather attack ME instead, probably because you have no real answer to it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Perhaps you may need to look up the word "chagrin."

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned that the Jets call was made in accordance to the rules, just like the tuck rule was. You didn't get that reference, either. If a rule is bad, that doesn't mean that it's not a rule and should not be called when you violate it. Of course, you probably want to see the infamous tuck rule call as completely legit because it's in accordance to the rules, yet still somehow don't want to validate the "pushing into the pile" rule. The players jockeyed for that rule. Believe it or not, I didn't like the call either. It's documented on this board. But if that's the rule, then IT'S NOT A BAD CALL when you enforce it. Tell me how I'm wrong.

Feel free to actually answer my question at any time. I get that you think that the refs have negatively affected the Patriots record in the long run, but now tell my why. Don't forget to include the Nate Solder non-call (which counteracts the Carolina no-call) or the "pushing into the pile" rule (look it up) when you do so.

All these things in play, tell me how the refs negatively affected the Patriots' record this year...

 

[Pat Riot]

What's fair is fair, right? Neither one of those non-calls were more unfair than the other, right? Neither team (the Saints nor the Patriots) were "cheated" any more that the other, right? In other words, both penalties (that weren't called in similar game situations) actually happened, right?

The difference is that Solder got beat, and Junior Galette sure looked like he had a great chance to disrupt Brady's pass if he was not blatantly held from the get-go...pulling on the jersey followed by the same type of love-hug. Meanwhile, Gronk sure didn't look like he really had much of a chance to catch that ball, did he? If you had to put a percentage on it, what would it be? How likely would it be for Gronk to catch that pass?

In other words, the non-call in the Saints game actually affected the play a hell of a lot more.

The difference is in the unfathomable tear-flow. Accept BOTH non-calls and shut the fck about the whole thing, because the refs did not decide anything about the Patriots' record this year. Bottom line. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Look at the no-calls themselves, don't rationalize it like a jive-ass turkey. The Panthers no-call isn't somehow validated any more just because a flag was thrown and then picked up. The Saints no-call happened too, and just as equally AT LEAST. Don't cut those corners in your logic. The truth is always true.

The end result is exactly the same. Things even out for the Patriots in these calls this year, and that's in the worst case scenario for the Pats. IMO, the Saints non-call was a lot worse, because the Pats were actually given 7 points on the play, when they should have had one play to score a TD from the 27-yardline or else lose the game instead. That's not what you would call a high-percentage proposition.

Meanwhile, giving the Patriots one more play on the Panthers 1 or 13-yardline hardly guarantees a win. The Panthers have one of the best front 7s in the game.

The irony of it all is that the Saints got screwed BOTH times, probably. If both these last-second penalties were called correctly, the Saints could very well be 3 games ahead of the Panthers instead of just one in the NFC South. The Saints are the only ones with the potential beef here.

Nice long winded post.

Again, one was flagged, as in seen and called, the other was neither. It's a BIG difference, besides TFB's mom said it was a penalty.

 

[Joker]

No, these are all real questions. I've been through the whole "trolling" issue with you before.

Apparently, you cannot follow simple logic.

If the Nate Solder hold was not called,the pass intererence WAS called...are you an insane person or what? and the Patriots win as a result, how can you be so chagrined about the Carolina no-callagain, it WAS called, the ref THREW the flag, where the Panthers win as a result? That's the basic gist, which you do not want to address...you'd rather attack ME instead, probably because you have no real answer to itI've answered it three times.The ref THREW the flag. ON the Solder play there was no flag. After the game is when the hold was brought up and that's because in real time, the ref didn't see it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Perhaps you may need to look up the word "chagrin."no, but you need to look up the word "obtuse"

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned that the Jets call was made in accordance to the rules, just like the tuck rule was. You didn't get that reference, either. If a rule is bad, that doesn't mean that it's not a rule and should not be called when you violate it. The players jockeyed for that rule. Believe it or not, I didn't like the call either. It's documented on this board. But if that's the rule, then IT'S NOT A BAD CALL when you enforce it.

Feel free to actually answer my question at any time. I get that you think that the refs have negatively affected the Patriots record in the long run, but now tell my why. Don't forget to include the Nate Solder non-call (which counteracts the Carolina no-call) or the "pushing into the pile" rule (look it up) when you do so.

Holding by YOUR Bills went on last week...uncalled. Holding goes on in every game and goes uncalled. Part of the game. Pass interference that is CALLED by the ref responsible for THAT part of the field, that is waved off by another official with NO EXPLANATION is a totally different issue altogether. You seem to conflate the two in your mind. The Jets call had NEVER been called and has NEVER BEEN CALLED since. I can show instances including the Jets in THAT game doing the exact same thing, all season long. Don't patronize me with your holier than thou nonsense. I'm sorry you are a Bills fan with a huge axe to grind, and that you're blinded by seeming blind rage when your idiotic assertions are shredded. Sleep it off. The end of another rotten Bills campaign will be here soon enough.

 

[pherein]

Nice long winded post.

Again, one was flagged, as in seen and called, the other was neither. It's a BIG difference, besides TFB's mom said it was a penalty.

They are the same because they possibly cost the game for a team that should not have won, is the the point. Called Karma. Hes saying live with it.

 

[Joker]

again, the Galette hold was no where near close to stopping Brady from getting the pass off...you're seeing things...there was a hold...your insistence that Gallette would have gotten to Brady if not for the hold is pure unproven fantasy. Your hatred for all things Patriot is, however, a very tangible thing and would be better served posted on a Bill's message board.

 

[pherein]

again, the Galette hold was no where near close to stopping Brady from getting the pass off...you're seeing things...there was a hold...your insistence that Gallette would have gotten to Brady if not for the hold is pure unproven fantasy. Your hatred for all things Patriot is, however, a very tangible thing and would be better served posted on a Bill's message board.

I think its a sack by Galette, joke, based on his speed aproaching Brady. I really think Brady never gets that ball off, but still if called its 10 yards, and you have to try again from the 28 with less than 5 seconds.
Nate was clearly beaten on that play, and held. Thats nothing against the Pats, just a bad call, and is on the refs. Oh wait, we are cry babys and bad fans sorry,lol

and yes Gronk would have come back and caught that pass, and it cost you the game.

 

[Uncle Meat]

Nice long winded post.

Again, one was flagged, as in seen and called, the other was neither. It's a BIG difference, besides TFB's mom said it was a penalty.

My post is long because you people do not want to see the truth. Did you even read it all? I doubt it. I try to explain it to you, but you want to stick your head in the sand. You continue to dodge my whole point, which I've made crystal clear. You don't want to address that AT ALL, though.

An infraction of the rules is not always an infraction of the rules then, huh? Almost makes makes me feel like you condone cheating. OUCH!! Maybe you think that two wrongs make a right as well. Then again, maybe it does in this case, if you are able to follow that.

Answer these questions or don't bother:

Should BOTH penalties have been called?

Going off that, did the refs negatively influence the Patriots record this year?

Answer please. Don't jive-ass turkey me anymore.