For all the IDIOTS complaining about the Partiots / Panthers Non Call...

[really]

1) Gronk was BACK PEDDLING the whole time, ANTICIPATING the ball being thrown in the BACK of the end zone.... By the time he saw the ball wasn't going to reach where he was....

Lets say the defender that "interfered" with him wasn't even there: Not even the fukkin FLASH or Superman would've been able to get to that ball and CATCH IT in .3 seconds...


That means STOP your 100% backwards momentum, and bounce back forward in .3 seconds... (the amount of time the ball traveled to be intercepted by the time Gronk knew he wouldn't get it)..... Unless I'm missing something and Gronk is DHALSIM... Impossible idiots, impossible... Uncatchable Ball (at BEST he might wouldn've been able to shoe string tackle him in the endzone... at BEST)...


2) Immediately after the Ref threw the flag, he called the others in for a conference... He KNEW it was 50 / 50 IMMEDIATELY... but he knew if he DIDN'T throw the flag, game was over.... So he threw it as a "place holder", called the other refs in the confer, and they agreed it was no foul...


That is all....

 

[Jplaya2023]

Really?!?! really?

 

[Gandolpiffini]

fukk the patriots

 

[really]

fukk the patriots

I don't give a fukk if it was my favorite team... shyt was not a penalty.


It's sad how 99% of ESPN are fukking IDIOTS.... shyt is embarassing.

 

[HHR]

I agree with the premise that Gronk wouldn't have made a play on the ball regardless of the interference.

But that doesn't make the pass uncatchable and it doesn't make it not pass interference. When is the last time, if ever, you saw a short throw ruled uncatchable?

I understand the mechanics of the decision and I don't really have a problem with it not being called.

But your logic is terrible.

By rule it was unquestionably pass interference.

 

[duck]

the announcers already broke it down enough

if there reason wasnt good enough , then tough shyt. they know more about football then the people callin for a PI , thats all there is too it

 

[ryshy]

I don't give a fukk if it was my favorite team... shyt was not a penalty.


It's sad how 99% of ESPN are fukking IDIOTS.... shyt is embarassing.

i hate how these nikkas always act like theyre fukkin refs or coaches i always get mad when these dudes spit bullshyt like this like theyre the final authority of football

 

[ryshy]

idk bout this play im not a ref though so wtf does my opinion mean

what i do think is kueckly is a very smart player, and you can see he looks back and sees the pass before doing what he did. He didnt grab gronk he did some weird manuever idk how to describe it. either way, i think he and the refs know how things work better than the coaches an analysts. believe it or not, a lot of coaches dont know the rules nearly as well as the refs, so these ex coaches an ex players who are out of touch with current nfl rules are not better judges than the refs. the fact that the refs looked afterwards and still stood by the call confirms this to me.

 

[ill]

 

[really]

I agree with the premise that Gronk wouldn't have made a play on the ball regardless of the interference.

But that doesn't make the pass uncatchable and it doesn't make it not pass interference. When is the last time, if ever, you saw a short throw ruled uncatchable?

I understand the mechanics of the decision and I don't really have a problem with it not being called.

But your logic is terrible.

By rule it was unquestionably pass interference.

You see that large bolded text?


This is a prime example of why there's 7 billion human beings on Earth, but some have to work at McDonalds and some Own the corporations.... I'm positive you fall under the former.



NEWS FLASH IDIOT: IF THE OTHER PLAYER INTERCEPTS THE BALL, THAT MEANS IT MAKES THE BALL "UNCATCHABLE" FOR GRONK...




Are there 2 BALLS?? Are you saying if Gronk wasn't held, the other player somehow WOULD HAVE NOT intercepted it? Watch the replay NUM NUTS....






This is the ONLY argument you, or any other IDIOT on Earth could possibly have: If Gronk was NOT HELD, he would've been able to get within SCREAMING distance, and yell loud enough (about a foot or 2 away from the player that intercepted it) so the player would've been startled and would've not been able to intercept the ball.....


Because it's IMPOSSIBLE he would've laid a hand on him... He was not close enough, idiot... He was moving backwards towards the back of the endzone, IDIOT... there is some shyt called MOMENTUM, GRAVITY.... it was NOT on Gronk's side, IDIOT...




So there is absolutely nothing wrong with my logic.... Again, unless you are saying Gronk was prevented from getting in Screaming distance to disturb the DB.... I'm not buying that, and neither were the Refs.... Because it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to have caught the ball... And likely even impossible to have touched him physically to cause him to BOBBLE the ball and allowed Gronk to catch it off a Tip...


The refs know that both of these scenarios had a .05% chance of happening, so they ruled it UNCATCHABLE...



Now if you STILL don't understand that... Its fine.. Go back to living the life of an idiot now.... It doesn't bother me

 

[really]

Clear as day to anyone who's not A) Blind B) an Imbecile.... which one do you fall under?

 

[HHR]

By rule, that isn't an uncatchable ball. Period.

 

[Higher Tech]

I agree with the premise that Gronk wouldn't have made a play on the ball regardless of the interference.

But that doesn't make the pass uncatchable and it doesn't make it not pass interference. When is the last time, if ever, you saw a short throw ruled uncatchable?

I understand the mechanics of the decision and I don't really have a problem with it not being called.

But your logic is terrible.

By rule it was unquestionably pass interference.

Came to say the same things

 

[Rick Roller 10]

Not gonna ever hear me complain about the Pats getting fukked over..

 

[Trojan 24]

I caught the edit @really

Contemplated a "DA Irony" post