[Red Badger]

I am neither a Pats fan or a Panthers fan. I watched the game. The ball could not have been caught by Gronkowski because it was too low and behind his back. The interception ended the game.............

[djf]

I don’t like those types of calls because they are subjective.

Catchable, uncatchable, that’s an opinion.

I have the same feeling about intentional grounding, being “in the pocket” or out of it, what difference does it make? If the QB throws the ball and there’s no receiver there because the QB doesn’t want to eat a dirt sandwich, it was grounding...

Go with the facts we know and see. Pass interference is pretty well defined.
Although this year, seems to me there have been alot of calls where it was just incidental contact...

[Steve_Seattle]

"The ball could not have been caught by Gronkowski because it was too low and behind his back."

Brady admitted as much after the game - it was a terrible throw, and Gronk didn't have a chance for it - it was low, and the defender was between him and the ball. Dilfer was all wrong, and looked goofy recreating the play during the post-game show. If Brady had made the usual high throw where Gronk uses his height to make the catch at the back of the end zone, it would clearly have been pass interference because he was clearly held.

Which raises the distinction between holding and pass interference - USUALLY, holding is not predicated on whether the ball was catchable. So I don't know what the right call is, but I am certain that Gronkowski could not have caught that ball.

[Lee'sGhost]

Thank you. One hundred percent correct.