UAB Blazers

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
OT: Starving for defense?
Author Message
blazr Away
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,981
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 276
I Root For: UAB
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #1
OT: Starving for defense?
Watch the Panthers tonight at home vs. the Pats. Carolina has quietly assembled the best front 7 in the NFL...and that's not hyperbole. Last week, by the 4th quarter Kaepernick looked dazed and completely befuddled, and the front 4 manhandled what was supposed to be the best OLine in the game...

SI.com: Dominant defensive line play key to Panthers' resurgence
11-18-2013 08:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Matrix Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,505
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 197
I Root For: UAB, N'Western
Location:
Post: #2
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
What did you of that call-turned-non-call at the end of the game? Had to be defensive holding at least, but since it was the Patriots getting screwed by the officials for a change, I took it all in stride...Way to go, Panthers!
11-20-2013 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blazers9911 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,792
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 224
I Root For: UAB
Location:

Survivor Runner-up
Post: #3
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
It was interesting to say the least.(fair warning here, I'm a Patriots fan) I really don't understand how you throw the flag, and then pick it up. It's pretty tough to say that a ball that's under thrown by 5 yards is uncatchable to me. It didn't look like Gronk was going to be able to get back to the ball, but a lot of that could have to do with the defender hugging him as he turned around.

I've seen worse calls for sure, and the Patriots wouldn't have needed a call there if they hadn't fumbled the ball on the 10 earlier in the game. It was a great game, and both teams looked really good. I always hate it when games end on controversial calls, but like I said, I've seen much worse than this before.
11-20-2013 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blazr Away
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,981
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 276
I Root For: UAB
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #4
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
It wasn't just the underthrow. The Head Official said Tuesday, after reviewing the tape, that they made the right call. The determination was that Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the point where the ball was intercepted even without being defended. Since the interception happened too far upfield, it was uncatchable for the receiver in question.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2013 03:47 PM by blazr.)
11-20-2013 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


UABFRENCHY Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,381
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 82
I Root For: UAB
Location: Vestavia

Donators
Post: #5
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
for my point of view , if the receiver can catch the ball or not had nothing to do with pass interference
Got no reason to change the call ,,,,,the defender interfere or not
many time in the nfl you see player catch ball that seem unreal
11-20-2013 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blazers9911 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,792
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 224
I Root For: UAB
Location:

Survivor Runner-up
Post: #6
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
(11-20-2013 03:46 PM)blazr Wrote:  It wasn't just the underthrow. The Head Official said Tuesday, after reviewing the tape, that they made the right call. The determination was that Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the point where the ball was intercepted even without being defended. Since the interception happened too far upfield, it was uncatchable for the receiver in question.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

A head official is going to side with his people when he can. It was a close call, and a bit of a judgement call. I just don't see how you determine Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the ball when he was being hugged. He was in the middle of the end zone when the ball was in the air, and the ball was intercepted in the end zone. Again, I don't think he could have gotten to it either, but these guys are all incredible athletes, so who knows?
11-20-2013 05:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blazr Away
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,981
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 276
I Root For: UAB
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #7
Re: RE: OT: Starving for defense?
(11-20-2013 04:21 PM)UABFRENCHY Wrote:  for my point of view , if the receiver can catch the ball or not had nothing to do with pass interference
Got no reason to change the call ,,,,,the defender interfere or not
many time in the nfl you see player catch ball that seem unreal

But the very definition of pass interference includes whether a pass is catchable. That covers over- or underthrown but also covers, say, balls that are tipped. If the ball was intercepted at a point before it would ever have reached the receiver, then it's uncatchable.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
11-20-2013 05:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


blazr Away
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,981
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 276
I Root For: UAB
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #8
Re: RE: OT: Starving for defense?
(11-20-2013 05:07 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 03:46 PM)blazr Wrote:  It wasn't just the underthrow. The Head Official said Tuesday, after reviewing the tape, that they made the right call. The determination was that Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the point where the ball was intercepted even without being defended. Since the interception happened too far upfield, it was uncatchable for the receiver in question.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

A head official is going to side with his people when he can. It was a close call, and a bit of a judgement call. I just don't see how you determine Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the ball when he was being hugged. He was in the middle of the end zone when the ball was in the air, and the ball was intercepted in the end zone. Again, I don't think he could have gotten to it either, but these guys are all incredible athletes, so who knows?

The ball was intercepted at the 2 yd line. That was part of the official's statement. It means Gronk was 7-8 yards away when the ball was caught. He would have had to stop his momentum and get MORE THAN 7-8 yds back upfield to have caught the ball before it was intercepted. Take out the interception and the flag definitely stands.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
11-20-2013 05:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UABFRENCHY Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,381
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 82
I Root For: UAB
Location: Vestavia

Donators
Post: #9
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
(11-20-2013 05:07 PM)blazr Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 04:21 PM)UABFRENCHY Wrote:  for my point of view , if the receiver can catch the ball or not had nothing to do with pass interference
Got no reason to change the call ,,,,,the defender interfere or not
many time in the nfl you see player catch ball that seem unreal

But the very definition of pass interference includes whether a pass is catchable. That covers over- or underthrown but also covers, say, balls that are tipped. If the ball was intercepted at a point before it would ever have reached the receiver, then it's uncatchable.

it understand but those guys are too fast ,,,,the ref cannot make all those decisions in a fraction of second ,,,,because if they did ,,,they will not be referee
the no call was predeterminate before he make the call .They will never admit it

that is same reason why when UAB play well against rich teams ,,,,we rarely get the call

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
11-20-2013 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blazr Away
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,981
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 276
I Root For: UAB
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #10
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
Hehe, true Frenchy. But, in this case, I would think the NFL would be more interested in protecting the Pats than Carolina. Especially with their showdown against the Broncos coming up this Sunday.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
11-20-2013 05:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


blazers9911 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,792
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 224
I Root For: UAB
Location:

Survivor Runner-up
Post: #11
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
(11-20-2013 05:13 PM)blazr Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 05:07 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 03:46 PM)blazr Wrote:  It wasn't just the underthrow. The Head Official said Tuesday, after reviewing the tape, that they made the right call. The determination was that Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the point where the ball was intercepted even without being defended. Since the interception happened too far upfield, it was uncatchable for the receiver in question.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

A head official is going to side with his people when he can. It was a close call, and a bit of a judgement call. I just don't see how you determine Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the ball when he was being hugged. He was in the middle of the end zone when the ball was in the air, and the ball was intercepted in the end zone. Again, I don't think he could have gotten to it either, but these guys are all incredible athletes, so who knows?

The ball was intercepted at the 2 yd line. That was part of the official's statement. It means Gronk was 7-8 yards away when the ball was caught. He would have had to stop his momentum and get MORE THAN 7-8 yds back upfield to have caught the ball before it was intercepted. Take out the interception and the flag definitely stands.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

And end zone is 10 yards, correct? Gronk was towards the back, but he was not in the very back when he started getting bear hugged. I'm thinking if the ball was caught 2 yards in, Gronk had to make up about 5 yards to get near it. It seems like a tough task, but again, with a guy pushing him in the opposite direction, we'll never know. Personally, I don't think the fact that it was intercepted should have anything to do with it. If there is pass interference, the fact that a defender made a play shouldn't take it out.
11-20-2013 05:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BAMANBLAZERFAN Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,221
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 57
I Root For: UAB & Bama
Location: Cropwell, AL

BlazerTalk Award
Post: #12
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
(11-20-2013 05:53 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 05:13 PM)blazr Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 05:07 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 03:46 PM)blazr Wrote:  It wasn't just the underthrow. The Head Official said Tuesday, after reviewing the tape, that they made the right call. The determination was that Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the point where the ball was intercepted even without being defended. Since the interception happened too far upfield, it was uncatchable for the receiver in question.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

A head official is going to side with his people when he can. It was a close call, and a bit of a judgement call. I just don't see how you determine Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the ball when he was being hugged. He was in the middle of the end zone when the ball was in the air, and the ball was intercepted in the end zone. Again, I don't think he could have gotten to it either, but these guys are all incredible athletes, so who knows?

The ball was intercepted at the 2 yd line. That was part of the official's statement. It means Gronk was 7-8 yards away when the ball was caught. He would have had to stop his momentum and get MORE THAN 7-8 yds back upfield to have caught the ball before it was intercepted. Take out the interception and the flag definitely stands.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

And end zone is 10 yards, correct? Gronk was towards the back, but he was not in the very back when he started getting bear hugged. I'm thinking if the ball was caught 2 yards in, Gronk had to make up about 5 yards to get near it. It seems like a tough task, but again, with a guy pushing him in the opposite direction, we'll never know. Personally, I don't think the fact that it was intercepted should have anything to do with it. If there is pass interference, the fact that a defender made a play shouldn't take it out.

It is a long standing rule that any "tip" or other defensive player's contact with the ball before it reaches the receiver nullifies the interference penalty. The same thing would have been the ruling had the ball been tipped at the line of scrimmage.
11-20-2013 06:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blazers9911 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,792
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 224
I Root For: UAB
Location:

Survivor Runner-up
Post: #13
RE: OT: Starving for defense?
(11-20-2013 06:03 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 05:53 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 05:13 PM)blazr Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 05:07 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  
(11-20-2013 03:46 PM)blazr Wrote:  It wasn't just the underthrow. The Head Official said Tuesday, after reviewing the tape, that they made the right call. The determination was that Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the point where the ball was intercepted even without being defended. Since the interception happened too far upfield, it was uncatchable for the receiver in question.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

A head official is going to side with his people when he can. It was a close call, and a bit of a judgement call. I just don't see how you determine Gronk couldn't have gotten back to the ball when he was being hugged. He was in the middle of the end zone when the ball was in the air, and the ball was intercepted in the end zone. Again, I don't think he could have gotten to it either, but these guys are all incredible athletes, so who knows?

The ball was intercepted at the 2 yd line. That was part of the official's statement. It means Gronk was 7-8 yards away when the ball was caught. He would have had to stop his momentum and get MORE THAN 7-8 yds back upfield to have caught the ball before it was intercepted. Take out the interception and the flag definitely stands.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

And end zone is 10 yards, correct? Gronk was towards the back, but he was not in the very back when he started getting bear hugged. I'm thinking if the ball was caught 2 yards in, Gronk had to make up about 5 yards to get near it. It seems like a tough task, but again, with a guy pushing him in the opposite direction, we'll never know. Personally, I don't think the fact that it was intercepted should have anything to do with it. If there is pass interference, the fact that a defender made a play shouldn't take it out.

It is a long standing rule that any "tip" or other defensive player's contact with the ball before it reaches the receiver nullifies the interference penalty. The same thing would have been the ruling had the ball been tipped at the line of scrimmage.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you can mug a guy before the ball is tipped.
11-20-2013 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blazr Away
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,981
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 276
I Root For: UAB
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #14
OT: Starving for defense?
It was definitely bang-bang and I thought for sure we had lost the game right there. It was an excellent job by the Back Judge to immediately call the Line Judge in to get his perspective.

I'll tell you, this city was pumped for that game. Granted we only get "special" college games (bowl games, ACC champ, kickoff classics) but this is an NFL town. And I hate to say it, but NFL tailgating beats the pants off the college version...and I've been to Tuscaloosa, The Grove, and the Biggest Cocktail party.
11-20-2013 06:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.