Illegal pick play?

[Mbilica]

If anything, this is a foul on the defense for initiating contact. Definitely not OPI. As for the earlier Clemson TD at the start of the 4th quarter, that was OPI.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[9thIsleZebra]

What if then if the defender, upon contact by the offensive player, instead of engaging backed off after the initial contact? Would a flag be justified then?

In the photo posted by bigjohn, the DB's eyes appear to be focused on #13 and that makes me think he had no intention to engage the wide receiver.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by 9thIsleZebra

What if then if the defender, upon contact by the offensive player, instead of engaging backed off after the initial contact? Would a flag be justified then?

In the photo posted by bigjohn, the DB's eyes appear to be focused on #13 and that makes me think he had no intention to engage the wide receiver.

A picture may say 1000 words, but a video shows 1000 pictures. Watch this whole sequence ... this photo is misleading.

[bigjohn]

https://youtu.be/czDFgvjtt4I

Here is the video, I don't see A avoiding contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

https://youtu.be/czDFgvjtt4I

Here is the video, I don't see A avoiding contact.

He is not supposed to avoid contact. He is allowed to run his route. The defender bit on the route and engaged that player.

I work deep wing in college and if I see that, then I am not calling any foul on that if that is my key or my area. Because when you have players up on coverage, they often bite on moves and that was the reason the inside guy was up. It was the coverage as well. Sorry, I doubt we will ever see anyone complain about this play from the NCAA because they would have to advocate many more fouls. That is why many defenses call a zone coverage at that part of the field. You make the wrong move, you leave someone open. The defender took on the guy on the inside.

Peace