iamshack

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 11:28 AM) That's why waiving off the flag was the right move. He DID intercept the ball. I can live with that. Under that interpretation of the rules, that is a fair treatment. I just think the rule needs to be changed...I don't think the rule was written to contemplate the situation that occurred last night. The officials shouldn't be deciding what the limits of one's athletic ability may or may not be, especially not in real time.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 10:51 AM) Does the presence of an obvious interceptor between ball and receiver make the pass uncatchable? I might be able to fathom that the ball gets near enough to Gronk if the ball is unimpeded. On the other hand, even an unimpeded Gronk has no chance of stopping that interception. Yes, that is what Gerry Austin was saying. It's similar to the treatment to a tipped ball, I believe.

Do they make this same call if the game is in Foxboro?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 07:52 AM) I have no earthly idea where he gets the 18 seconds. Can someone explain to me? He had 3 timeouts and like 50 - 60 seconds left and 1st and goal. In what world would there be 18 seconds left? I'd think you'd have like 30-40 seconds left. Well, the Ravens ran the ball to the 5 where Ray Rice was tackled with like 1:12 left to get the first down. We'd take our first time out there. 1:08 left. Then they'd run a play, say 3-4 seconds long, we take our second time out. 1:04 left. On second down, they run another play, say 3-4 second long, we take our third time out. 1:00 left. On third down, they could run another play that results in a the player being down in bounds and the clock running. The play clock is what, 40 seconds long? They then kick the field goal with 20ish second left. The issue with that reasoning is if they do that, they are either scoring the td or kicking the fg anyways, and the entire timing issue is moot.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 07:45 AM) According to Barnwell at Grantland they could have (and should have) called holding: The rule cited here states that this is in effect when the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball. Rule 12 Player Conduct

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 07:39 AM) Gronk is running to the back of the endzone. By the time he's "pushed" the ball is already caught. Gronk is awesome, but he can't change his momentum and change direction instantly. Well watch the replay closely. The intercepting defender is in darn near the exact same spot as Gronk is when the interference begins. Keuchly has a right to be there and play the ball, but he isn't; he's facing Gronk and then encircles his arms around him, which is the definition of holding/interference. He impedes Gronk from making a play on the ball, illegally. I agree Gronk's momentum is taking him away from the ball and I doubt he catches it if the defender doesn't interfere with him, but it's pretty difficult to say with absolute certainty.

Ok, now that I think about it, they do not call defensive holding after the ball has been thrown. They usually say "prior to the pass being thrown..." when they make that call. I guess that is an excuse to not call the holding. So then it comes down to interference, which they decided to waive off because they determined it was uncatchable. I honestly think it probably was uncatchable, but I still don't like them making that determination in real time on a ball thrown into the middle of the end zone.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 07:32 AM) btw, totally agree with Dan LeBatard: @LeBatardShow : You know what is funny? If it HAD remained pass interference, we all would have b****ed about that, too, saying that can't be called there There would have been a contingent of Carolina fans that would have made that argument. I think the rest of us would be discussing the play, of course, but I don't think you'd have the nearly universal belief that they got the call incorrect that we all have today.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 07:30 AM) Yeah, you're right. It's closer than 7-8 yards. But still, i'm not sure why people are upset with the call. To call that pass interference you're bailing out a bad throw by Brady and a good play by the Carolina defender. Fair enough. Brady was under duress and just threw it up, that much is clear. But how is that not defensive holding, at the very least?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 07:12 AM) That's defensive holding and not pass interference. That's probably the most correct call, but as you can see, there are just so many different rules that could be applied and so many interpretations of those rules, which become subsets of those rules.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 07:09 AM) With the spirit of the rule in mind, why should the officials have bailed out Brady and the Patriots for an awful throw? This isn't a ball that lands 5 yards short and is arguably catchable, it was intercepted 7-8 yards in front of the receiver. He had no hope of catching that ball. Well, I disagree as to the numbers you are using...the end zone is only 10 yards deep. The ball was intercepted 3-4 yards into the end zone and Gronkowski was what, 2-3 yards from the end line? Therefore, it probably was 3-5 yards in front of him. Honestly, I am not even sure what the "spirit" of the rules are anymore. There are so many of them and there are so many different interpretations of those rules. We have a clear infraction occurring, and a flag was thrown because of it. How can you explain to me that that wasn't defensive holding? Additionally, as I said previously, I don't like putting the officials in a position to try and determine in real time what is catchable and what isn't, unless the threshold they are utilizing is like a ridiculous standard, such as, the ball is some 10 or more yards over the receiver's head or something.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 06:56 AM) There was a PI call in the Bears game where the ball landed nearly 10 yards beyond the end line. I'm still trying to figure out how that ball was catchable, yet I didn't notice anybody on the Bears sideline complaining, nor did the announcers mention it. There are so many rules and so many different interpretations of those rules. It's almost like a court of law with a ton of precedent at this point...the official can chose how he wants to rule and then find a rule or interpretation to support that ruling. The changes have made NFL games extremely difficult to wager on. The officials have such a huge role in the outcome of the games now, and you just don't know how a game is going to be officiated.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 06:53 AM) There's also an opportunity/cost discussion here as well. Had the White Sox invested $10 million a year last offseason in, I don't know, Edwin Jackson or something like that to fill a minor role...they could have found themselves having less in the budget this year when a potential all-star 1b suddenly defected from Cuba and became available. Having that money to spend hopefully has enabled us to plug the biggest hole in our lineup in one fell swoop. Right, that is essentially the entire point of having a budget.

They absolutely do go over budget when they feel it is worthwhile to do so. Let's be very clear here, the budget is not some hard line number that must be reached at all costs or cannot be eclipsed at any costs. It is a fluid number that is set with the intention of achieving their short and long term goals. And let's be honest, there is no absolute correlation between spending money and success on the field or at the box office. If there was, there would be a lot more merit towards spending the money for the sake of increasing the success of the on field product or the revenues. We all know it doesn't work that way. If they find a player that they feel helps achieve their short and long-term goals, they will spend the money. They've always shown this. They just signed a guy for $68 million that has never played an mlb game before.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 06:39 AM) What did Talib do yesterday? He was spazing out on Steve Smith almost from the outset. Smith made a catch for a first down in the first quarter, and as he tried to get up, well after the play was ruled dead, Talib refused to let go of his ankle and foot while on the ground, trying to prevent Smith from getting up. Smith then tried to push him off of him and Talib acted as if Smith was coming at him unprovoked or something. So the Pats sit Talib down on the sideline to cool him off for a few plays. He gets back in there, and first play, he's grabbing smith and pushing and shoving him and grabbing his facemask.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 06:33 AM) Even so, it is incredibly illegal to hold downfield. If it's not pass interference, it's holding . That should have been called. Also, my opinion of Aqib Talib did not change. One of the dirtiest, s***tiest players in the game. Yeah, that was a disgusting call...I understand why the "uncatchable" nuance exists. It's frustrating when you see a ticky tack PI call when the ball is launched 25 yards out of bounds. When the ball is thrown into the middle of the field, no less the middle of the end zone, I have to call bs on the uncatchable call. More succinctly to your point, Wite, is the call where they call holding away from the ball on an entirely different defender guarding a different receiver from where the ball was thrown. Total nonsense.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 08:49 PM) If he doesn't get pushed back it's very catchable, that's definitely interference. I mean it probably gets picked anyways, but who knows for sure? Maybe he whacks the defender as he tries to catch it and it goes flying into the air or something? It's just silly to allow the refs to make a judgment call when an infraction occurs. They need to change that rule.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 08:40 PM) I dont know what Gerry Austin was smoking during his explanation. He's almost always wrong... I just don't like the refs trying to decide in real time what is catchable and what is not...it should be a penalty irregardless. They don't waive off holding penalties that have no impact on positive plays; why should they do it with pass interference?

That's horses***...that's interference

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 06:21 PM) He would only be right about the time if the Ravens didn't score a touchdown nor throw an incomplete pass nor go out of bounds. Then you would use the 3 timeouts and the Ravens could run down the play clock all 40 seconds before fourth down. However, if they did get to 4th down, they probably kick a field goal and you can go to overtime anyway. I liked his explanation about forcing the Ravens' hand in regards to personnel and play-calling, but had they scored a touchdown, those 30 seconds that ticked off would have been vital. Plus, the Ravens had the two timeouts to get personnel in on two plays. After he didn't call it at 1:12, there wasn't much point in taking one, but I think he absolutely should have called it then.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 06:04 PM) Well, if he's right that they'd only have 18 seconds (versus 10 or 7 or whatever) while giving the ravens the ability to change their packages and call a wider variety of plays, it makes sense. I just don't know if he's right about the time that'd be left. He is, IF they run on 3rd down and the first and second downs were either running plays or completed passes where the player was tackled in bounds. However, if they did get to 3rd down, and they did run, and they've either scored the td and it's pretty much a moot point, or they haven't scored and you've really lost almost nothing. I can buy his argument if the other team has no timeouts, but they had two, and they used two, which allowed them to use whatever packages they wanted.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 05:48 PM) I think Sox ownership can swing such expenditures for a bit and be alright. That's a slippery slope...you sound like Jay Mariotti, advocating to sign everyone every year then criticizing the team later for having all these bums on the payroll.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 05:22 PM) I wouldn't sweat it then either. The problem is those add up over time, until one day you wake up, and you've got a s***load of obligations, a terrible team, and no money left to improve it.

Let's face it, the White Sox have the money to spend if they'd like to. They could do what the Tigers have done if they really wanted to. No one is saying the funds aren't there in any given year(s) to acquire players if they feel it can put them over the top. HOWEVER, the White Sox are operated from the standpoint of a business hoping to earn a profit, to gain value over time, and to be successful in accomplishing other goals (winning baseball championships, philanthropy, etc). Indiscriminately spending money for the sake of spending money does not fit within the parameters of achieving those goals.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 02:44 PM) I don't think it's clear, but this line makes me think he was still sticking with the "13%" thing even when they were in the red zone. Yep, he clearly is arguing that he was making decisions based on a 13% probability. Whether he really believed that at the time is a different story, but that is what he is saying here. Otherwise, he shouldn't have mentioned it. It's irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. If he wants to use that for the reason he punted, fine, but not for why he didn't take timeouts here. I would think the Raven's td percentages once they reached the 5 were in the realm of 50-65 percent or more, and against our defense, maybe higher.