The Official Forum - DPI Philosophy

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)

- - DPI Philosophy (https://forum.officiating.com/football/49018-dpi-philosophy.html)

Since we're in a thread about DPI philosophy...what do you folks think about calling DPI where the "interfered" with receiver was able to make a fairly routine catch. I've seen this on a few high school games on TV and I have to wonder how much the receiver was actually interfered with if he was able to make a catch. Now granted, a receiver that is interfered with but is able to make a fantastic, athletic or just plain lucky catch I could see calling the DPI anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 538234)

This approach you'll be happy with until there is a Team A foul that can't be balanced with the DPI that you didn't call.

I've passed on contact that I felt put Team A at no disadvantage - and the WR has both caught and not caught the call - though I think that is different than what you're asking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 538241)

This approach you'll be happy with until there is a Team A foul that can't be balanced with the DPI that you didn't call.

I agree. If it's DPI, call it. If the catch is made, offense gets the choice of the play or the penalty (enforced from the previous spot on a loose ball foul). If the offense has also fouled, offset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverAndBack (Post 538199)

Yes, the ball was thrown close enough for him to catch.

If it was an instance where the ball was in a position where both players had to dive/jump/otherwise attempt to go for it and there was contact, no, I'm not flagging that. That's two players playing the ball who contact each other.

But this was one player ready to make the catch - whether he'd have made it or not without the contact, well, God knows - and the defender coming through him from behind and the side to make the play. I'm sure we've all seen instances where the defender manages to get a hand around the front of the receiver's body and get the ball without touching the offensive player (or barely touching him) and I'm going to probably let that go, too.

Seeing as how everybody I've talked to and all of you folks seem to think that it was interference, I am less confused than I was. Initial instincts were probably correct.

As a member of the same association, this wasn't clarified very well at the meetings. The obvious intent to impede was used when discussing two players bumping on the route.

In this case, if the receiver is in position to catch the ball and the defender then comes through him, it would be pass interference.

The intention of the philosophy was to make sure that a penalty was called if the receiver's or defender's effort to catch the pass was impeded.

If both players are playing the ball, but they are bumping or hand slapping each other, no foul.