At the High School level ,Pass Interference

[Kansas Ref]

Receiver and DB are running in-phase on deep fly route, then DB's left foot entangles or clips Receiver's right foot while ball is in the air being passed in the direction of this matchup; Reciever faIIs down but DB only stumbles and does not fall down. Is this a PI on the DB? Why and/or why not? Or a NC ? Why or why not?

[JRutledge]

If all the feet did was tangled, then it would be nothing. If the opponent runs up the back of the opponent, that is a little different. Really would HTBT to know. Who falls should not matter. Because if you tangle your feet and you are doing everything, someone could fall or be off balance.

Peace

[chapmaja]

I will start by saying I am not a football ref. The closest thing I can equate this to is a non-lane race in track.

Two runners are running stride for stride with each other. They tangle legs and someone goes to the ground. Is it interference? The best way to judge something like this is from a straight on view. For the legs to tangle someone has to be moving into the path of the other person.

Making this a football discussion, is the WR deviating a straight path into the DB and the feet tangle, causing the WR to fall? If this is the case then I have no call because the fall was a result of the actions of the WR. Now if the DB deviates into the path of the WR and the feet tanlge, he has caused the contact (by deviating his path), and gained an advantage (causing the WR to stumble / fall). This could be called PI.

Like the other comment says HTBT to say yes of no. Also, have to have the correct angle, something replays often get, but on field officials don't always get the luxury of having.

[Robert Goodman]

Federation rules differ from other codes in not requiring as they do actual interference with an attempt to catch the ball to be "interference", but including interference with an opponent's movement toward the ball or its trajectory. I suppose that's to take out the judgment of whether a player had a legitimate chance to catch it, but if taken literally it would turn into fouls many cases of contact far, far away from the ball's path. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

However, as to the case in question, it must be kept in mind that opposing players have an equal right to try for the ball. If it ever looks like one player is playing the opponent more than playing the ball, that's interference on contact. But you already knew that. The question is, if both players are trying for the ball but one is in the way of the other, does the "equal right" to the ball include running as if the other player weren't there, i.e. going "thru" that player just because you're running faster?

A lot of ball-and-goal sports have explicit provisions about these situations -- being first to establish a line to the ball, continuing in one direction, whether you're allowed to charge shoulder-to-shoulder, "right of way", boxing out -- but football never includes one in the actual rules that I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, football officials protect a player who's in front and running as fast as he can to the ball, but may differ in judgment regarding one who slows down and tries to (or happens to) box out the opponent as in basketball, even if adjusting to the flight of the ball requires slowing down. Fortunately there's no ring or backboard the ball can bounce off, or there'd be a lot more of those situations. (Oh, snap, I forgot about Arena football.)

You want a game that's really difficult on these judgements? Australian football. The ball's in the air seemingly forever and collisions between opposing players jumping for it abound.