DPI Philosophy

[Welpe]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.