|
|||
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Pope Francis |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Philosophy | bossman72 | Football | 6 | Tue Sep 16, 2008 03:25am |
Philosophy | Rita C | Basketball | 40 | Mon Dec 11, 2006 09:17am |
What is your philosophy | Jake80 | Baseball | 2 | Tue May 13, 2003 02:32pm |
NBA philosophy | Andy | Basketball | 3 | Tue Feb 18, 2003 08:32am |
Philosophy and How many "T"s? | Ron Pilo | Basketball | 6 | Tue Jan 11, 2000 02:20pm |