Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 12:25 PM) So does Joakim Noah just suck now or what? I think it's a little early to tell. He didn't have a preseason to get into game shape. But yeah, he basically has no role in the offense right now. He'll get a few rebounds for you, but that's about it. As a whole I think the Bulls are still a work in progress. Guys gotta gel.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 04:31 PM) Are you kidding me? He's right there. Watch the GIF again, visualize no defenders, and look at where Gronkowski is. He has to take like maybe 2 steps. I've said all along that I don't think Gronkowski comes up with that catch, but I think he can at least prevent the INT from happening and perhaps punching it up into the air, and he can certainly make the catch too. Watch the video in real time and it's much clearer. He's not running a curl route. He's heading to the back of the end zone to catch a high ball. The defender impedes his progress initially and then holds him, but by that point he has no shot of turning back to the goal line and diving forward. IMO it would have been physically impossible for him to get close to the ball and/or the defender that intercepts it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 04:29 PM) Completely disagree. I think that Gronk makes that play if there is no interference and no other defender. (edit) And the fact that there is any real argument over whether it was "catchable" should mean that the flag stays. It should have to be indisputably not catchable. Im talking 15-20 yards away. Agree to disagree I guess. I don't see him ever catching that ball based on the route he was running and where Brady put the ball. And I think it would have been terrible to bail out the Patriots and basically give them a win on a penalty that didn't affect the play.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) But would he have intercepted the ball had Gronk not been interfered with? Yes, Gronk had a 0% chance of ever catching that ball. Take away his defender and he still doesn't catch that ball. He's going to the back of the endzone whereas the carolina defender and the ball were towards the middle of the end zone. In .25 seconds he's not changing direction and diving forward 2-3 yards. I don't think it was catchable based on the where the ball was and where Gronk was headed even with the contact. There's no way he catches that ball even if it's not intercepted. The interception just further establishes that it was never going to happen. Edit: and in your scenario if the tackle didn't play into the uncatchability of the pass, as was the case here, then yes, that's a correct call too. It's no different than a guy interfering with a receiver on one side of the field when the ball is thrown to another receiver on the other side of the field. You don't call pass interference there even though there is clearly interference. If you can't catch the ball, you can't catch the ball. The interference doesn't change the play. That's how last night was called and I believe the video confirms it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) I would, yes. We don't have a rule that says a holding penalty can be changed because the hold was on the other side of the field. The officials aren't in the business of determining whether illegal blocks in the back on kickoff/punt returns would have actually impacted the return. If there is a block in the back, there is a block in the back and they throw the flag. I don't know why we need to have this special exception here. That would be a rule change i'd be behind. There's nothing worse than those phantom hold calls on the opposite side of the field that have nothing to do with the actual play. That should be a play on situation. But I disagree that there shouldn't be an exception for an uncatchable ball. If a QB sails a pass 30 feet over a receivers head, there shouldn't be an interference penalty. The interference didn't cause any change in the receivers ability to catch the ball.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) ...you were saying? http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/14/justice/mich...?iref=allsearch Response time of 2 minutes is not realistic.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) 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. So would you get rid of the uncatchable exception altogether?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 01:23 PM) Its a terrible call. If Gronk isnt held, who knows what happens. And the presence of a possible interceptor should do nothing. What if the ball goes right through his hands, now its pass interference? That's why waiving off the flag was the right move. He DID intercept the ball.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:31 AM) If you haven't finished up GTA 4 by now, you never will! Ha. Good catch. Meant 5 obviously.

I still think it's crazy that the guy before him spoke for TWO hours and he only spoke for two minutes.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 10:29 AM) I'd heard of people who had to memorize it, but we merely studied it. I did have to memorize Marc Antony's speech from The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. I had to memorize the "To be or not to be" soliloquy by Hamlet.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:58 AM) This is not the argument though. Is the ball catchable? Yes. Would Gronkowski have caught it? 99 times out of 100, no, no way. And if you look at the GIF, Gronk stops, makes a move with his upper body towards, the ball, but Keuchly is too strong and continues pushing him away. I don't really see it that way. I see Gronk heading towards the back of the endzone and he maybe slows down. About the time the ball is intercepted Keuchly is denying Gronk from getting to the spot where the ball may end up. Gronk is never going towards the ball (towards the front of the end zone) and by the time his motion is really impeded the ball is already intercepted.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:47 AM) While I have not been convinced at all that Trayvon was a bad kid, was definitively winning this fistfight, or was the aggressor -- the disturbing thing is how we as a society are largely okay with the thought of these kinds of encounters being fatal, so long as the victim was a bad person or started the fight. I wouldn't say i'm "ok" with it, like i'm happy that Martin lost his life for being good at fighting. But at the same time if I'm in Zimmerman's shoes and I feel like i'm about to be killed as a result of someone smashing my head into a curb, and I have a gun on me, I shouldn't have to gamble on whether he'll eventually let up and leave me alone. I should be able to defend myself to the death if necessary. Whether or not Zimmerman should have put himself in that position by tailing Martin in the first place is beside the point. And I think that the sane world all agrees that this is a pretty tragic situation no matter who's at "fault."

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) 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. According to Barnwell at Grantland they could have (and should have) called holding:

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) Jesus. So the ball is thrown, Keuchly is pushing him to the back of the endzone, and the DB runs up to intercept it. You could not see a clearer shot of how blatant of a missed call that is. 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:32 AM) 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? It's one or the other, absolutely. But to me that interference or holding wouldn't have changed the fact that the ball was slightly under thrown and was intercepted. If Gronk had been defended legally he's not going to catch that ball because the carolina defender was in his way. He's drifting towards the back of the endzone while the carolina guy is breaking towards the ball closer to the middle/front of the endzone.

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

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:29 AM) Gronks head is turned to the ball, he absolutely could have come back to the ball and made a play if Kuechly isnt grabbing him Sure, if you ignore the defender 2-3 yards in front of him in the path of the ball.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:13 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) Wrong. He was being held before he entered the endzone That initial contact happens on every single play in the NFL these days. I agree that a second or two before the ball is intercepted the guy is interfering with him, but to call that catchable you have to completely ignore the other defender who gets in between Gronk and the ball.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:13 AM) Gronk was being held well before the ball was intercepted. Interceptions don't cancel out penalties. Also have you ever seen some of the passes that Gronk has caught in his career? To say he had no chance at that pass is ridiculous. Gronk can't magically take the place of the other defender. And we can't pretend like that defender wasn't there.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:12 AM) I disagree that he had no hope of catching it. It was short for sure, but if Gronk runs a curl in front of Kuechly, he would have been standing right where it was intercepted. Plus, Kuechly was face guarding AND grabbing him before Gronk even entered the endzone, before the ball was thrown. But he didn't run a curl. He ran to the back of the endzone. And the ball was caught almost at the same time that he was interfered with. The only hope Gronk has of catching that ball is a deflection. But that didn't happen, the dude caught the ball.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 08:39 AM) I doubt I'll make it that long. Dear family, Best Buy gift cards please. K thnx. I'm definitely keeping the ps3, though. It's still a top-of-the-line bluray player and media hub. I'm not trading in that beast for like $70. This is my plan as well. Still too much to like about the ps3 to drop it totally. Now my 360, as soon as I finish up GTA IV that thing is going away.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 05:03 AM) Oh my god, that Gillian storyline in Boardwalk. What a big f***ing facepalm. Really? That was quite the elaborate and far thought out plan. Despite it being a good moment for that actress, that whole scenario relies on too many "ifs" for me. I'm still not sure that I like it. And as much as I like Chalky, there's been way too much of him and "Daughter" for me. Too boring. The dinner scene with Nucky and Eli was pretty great though. Setting up for a great finale.

Where was that narrative? Maybe from internet comments, not the real world.