NCAA Pass Interference

[DJ_NV]

Is it the correct interpretation of 7-3-9-b,h that if action that would otherwise be considered PI is committed before the ball is touched that it is still pass interference?

[Theisey]

Doesn't 7-3-9-d answer that for you?

[DJ_NV]

What does 7-3-9-d have anything to do with it?

for example, assume that you have a receiver blocking downfield, pick play or similar. You're waiting to see if a legal forward pass is thrown and crosses the LOS. It does and you throw for OPI. Then the pass is tipped or otherwise touched. Do we interpret 7-3-9-h to mean that if an action that constitutes PI occurs before the touch that the PI call will stand (anything after cannot be PI) or does it mean that once a ball is touched, that any PI that was called before and after the touch is waved off (specifically before for this discussion).

I realize that this is a much shorter time period for DPI as the restrictions start when the ball is thrown, not at the snap as it is with OPI, and the time between when the ball is thrown and the time it is tipped is usually quite short unless it is a very long pass.

In other words, on 7-3-9-h, does the word "after" imply that PI is only off during the time period 'after' the ball is touched or does it mean that 'after' the ball is touched, all PI restrictions at any time during the down are off?

[Theisey]

PI is off AFTER the ball is touched. Anything up to that point would be PI.
Your pickplay example is what I was also thinking when I referenced your post.

Receiver A-88 picks off a defender B22, a pass is thrown which crosses the NZ, it's touched by a B56 in front of receiver A95.
I still have a flag for an illegal pick because the pass crossed the NZ but I would not have a flag or it would be waved off for a DPI if B13 hit A95 prior to his attempt to catch the ball.


Had the ball been touched by say B62 behind the NZ, I could have two flags both of which would be waved off because the pass did not cross the NZ per rule.

[Texas Aggie]

This is one reason why I'm not sure the DPI call in the OU/Oregon game was wrong. It was clear the ball was touched, however, the contact did occur prior to the touching.

[DJ_NV]

Thanks guys,

that's what I was looking for. The example in the Oregon game is probably the more rare version as there's not much time for anything to happen between when the ball is thrown and it is touched by a player, however as we saw it's been known to happen.

More importantly, it's the times when we do have PI on either team such as this and the coaches and everyone else wants all PI waved off regardless of when it happened.

thanks again

[Texas Aggie]

The other issue I thought of becomes catchability. While its fair to say that the time elapse between the pass and tip in the OU/Oregon game was too short for the contact to be ruled illegal (though that is still debatable), let's take another situation:

A81 is tackled by B40 and goes down while the pass is in the air, but right after this, B22 jumps up and tips the pass out of bounds. Let's just add that there's no way A81 would have made that catch had he not been tackled. Do we have DPI or waive off due to uncatchability?

I agree this scenario is unlikely, but as soon as we ignore it, we will have it in a game.

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I agree this scenario is unlikely, but as soon as we ignore it, we will have it in a game.

It happened almost as you described in the Auburn-LSU game this weekend.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The other issue I thought of becomes catchability. While its fair to say that the time elapse between the pass and tip in the OU/Oregon game was too short for the contact to be ruled illegal (though that is still debatable), let's take another situation:

A81 is tackled by B40 and goes down while the pass is in the air, but right after this, B22 jumps up and tips the pass out of bounds. Let's just add that there's no way A81 would have made that catch had he not been tackled. Do we have DPI or waive off due to uncatchability?

I agree this scenario is unlikely, but as soon as we ignore it, we will have it in a game.

It's not unlikely at all ... ask LSU. And I (along with the SEC Commish) agree with your assessment in this sitch.

[AndrewMcCarthy]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

And I (along with the SEC Commish) agree with your assessment in this sitch.

Agree with what? I didn't see Aggie give his ruling above- he just posed the question.