Quote:
Originally Posted by OverAndBack
A10 runs a square-out and has his back to the goal line as the quarterback throws him the ball. B9 hits A10 from the back (right side of the back), coming through him and then making a near-interception on the ball. Pass incomplete.
DPI?
One of the things our association gave us on certain philosophies is that there has to be an "obvious intent to impede" for it to be DPI and that contact isn't necessarily DPI.
|
Writing as a fan, I would consider any incident of "coming through" an eligible receiver trying to play the ball, unless it was clearly seen to have no effect on that receiver's ability to catch it, would be interference. A10 was looking back for the ball and assuming it was thrown close enough for him to catch, B9's hit on the right side of the back must have done something that impaired A10's ability to catch the ball, hard to see how it could've been otherwise. I've never seen anything in the rules themselves that says interference has to be intentional to count, any more than most other contact fouls; it's the effect that counts, not the intent. If officials' associations are saying otherwise, it casts a different light on the passing game for this fan.
The only common ways I'd imagine contact between opponents that impairs the ability of either or both to catch a pass that could've been completed to not be an interference foul would be being forced by contact with one opponent into the way of another, or running in parallel with or converging on the ball more or less between their paths, in which case a shoulder-to-shoulder charge (as in soccer or rugby), a tangling of feet, or a head-on collision would be no interference. I see the "inside track" on the ball or "boxing out" the opponent as deserving protection when both are attempting to play the ball.
Robert