DPI Philosophy
 

Had a play recently that's been bugging me.

A10 runs a square-out and has his back to the goal line as the quarterback throws him the ball. B9 hits A10 from the back (right side of the back), coming through him and then making a near-interception on the ball. Pass incomplete.

DPI?

One of the things our association gave us on certain philosophies is that there has to be an "obvious intent to impede" for it to be DPI and that contact isn't necessarily DPI.

Our white hat said the umpire got it right, I'm just curious as to what your philosophy is (I know you didn't see the play, I tried to describe it as best I could).

Sounds like DPI. Your words "coming through" are the key. Neither player can play through the other player to get the ball.

The "impede" wording from your association doesn't deal with this situation. That would be a situation where the route of the receiver is being impeded. It sounds like he already had run his route to get to where he was at.

There is a philosophy that each player has an equal shot at the ball. This is true, but you still can't go through a player to get the ball. Assuming that the contact was prior to the ball getting there, it sounds like there was a foul.

I agree that it sounds like DPI. The act by B does not have to be intentional for it to be DPI. And, as previously mentioned, the act of "coming through" the receiver, to me, says that this is DPI.

The NFL catergorizes defensive pass interference into six categories. I know this is from the NFL but I have also seen it advocated as a philosophy for NFHS as well.


Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

Your play seems to be an example of playing through the receiver.

Out of curiosity, why did the umpire have the call on that play?

Playing through the back is one the keys for a PI. For this key, we tend to use: if the contact occurs so close to the ball getting there, that I can't tell what happened first, then I have no foul.

I'm not certain that I that I like the phrase "obvious intent to impede". I don't believe that any player goes out there to obviously intend to impede an opponent, as players should know that such action would be a flag.

They know that their job is to prevent a catch. A sure-fire way to do that is to catch the ball yourself, or knock it away from the opponent. To do that, players often play the odds that the ball won't go through a receivers hands and into their direction, but rather desire to be in the line of the pass before the ball gets to the intended receiver. They can do that, but not through an opponent's back.

Say that a cornerback just has bad timing, and "gets there early" by going through the back of an opponent. Do you really believe that that player had an intent to impede his opponent? I don't - I just think he sucked at timing on that play.

Wouldn't an obvious intent to impede have to be called intentional pass interference, and doesn't that carry it's own, more severe, foul?

That's what I thought! DPI, if intentional (and you'd have to have a really severe, basketball-like dragdown I think, to make that call), it's an additional 15, correct?

On the play in question (which I'd like to see again on video if I can get it), it wasn't so close in timing that you couldn't tell which happened first. Contact (and not just a little bump) from the back and side first, coming throught the receiver, then contact with the ball.

We went through Intentional DPI on one of the forums not too long ago. I believe the consensus was - short of a weapon being pulled it's not being called.

That would be my guess. It would have to be pretty bad.

Did the umpire call the DPI or did he say that it wasn't a foul? Out of curiosity, why was this the U's call and no one else's? I'm not an umpire, and I don't pretend know what I am talking about here, but is this a call umpires tend to make? Again, not trying to criticize anyone...just wondering.

Two things here - I think your association is making up it's own rules. The "obvious intent to impede" is not really supported by the NFHS rules. I personally would go with the NF and not the association in deciding. Second, the umpire called this? That's very unusual for a U to call PI. After watching the blocking, watching for ineligibles down field and then turning to help on a trap, a U normally doesn't have the time to see the whole interaction between the receiver and defender. I think there is too big of a risk for the U seeing just the end of the play to call PI.

For your consideration
 

In an earlier post that mentions Intentional DPI I replied by saying that short of a weapon being use it's unlikely to be called. I know in a recent discussion we hashed this out and seemed to agree that it's unlikely to ever be called. I don't remember if anyone brought up a situation where there was agreement on when to call it.

Consider this -

A's ball, third and 3 from their own 27 yard line. A80 is lined up in the slot, B40 is close to the LOS. At the snap A80 makes a move and attempts to run a quick slant pattern. B40 slips as he tries to bump A80. B40, knowing he is beaten on the play reaches out and grabs A80's face mask and pulls him to the ground. The QB is already in the act of throwing the pass to A80.

In this situation I think the Intentional DPI would be the correct call. It might even be considered flagrant and warrant the DQ of B40.

This is a play that is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Thoughts?

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

DPI or illegal contact and UR-facemask! 2 fouls... apply both.

Few things:

Here are the philosophies given to us (they're state philosophies and not association philosophies, I do believe) on Pass Interference.

1. If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

2. Defensive players have as much right to the path of the ball as eligible offensive players.

3. Both layers have a right to the ball and there must be "an obvious intent to impede" to rule pass interference.

4. There can be no pass interference at or behind the LOS or if the pass does not cross the neutral zone, but defensive actions such as tackling a receiver can still result in a penalty for defensive holding.


Now, all that said - yes, the U is rarely going to make this call. This was a four-man game with two wings in their first year (one in his fourth game) and an umpire with more experience at other positions (and only two youth games at U). The short pass was into the flat after the U had gotten to the line and turned after checking line play. First instinct was "he came through the receiver, that's pass interference" and the flag was out.

Mechanically and situationally (A was up comfortably at that point in the 4th quarter), yes, it would have been better to have never even seen it, but that'll come. Just wanted to make sure that I have the philosophy correct so that in a similar situation later where it is someone's call to make, they don't second-guess themselves.

Writing as a fan, I would consider any incident of "coming through" an eligible receiver trying to play the ball, unless it was clearly seen to have no effect on that receiver's ability to catch it, would be interference. A10 was looking back for the ball and assuming it was thrown close enough for him to catch, B9's hit on the right side of the back must have done something that impaired A10's ability to catch the ball, hard to see how it could've been otherwise. I've never seen anything in the rules themselves that says interference has to be intentional to count, any more than most other contact fouls; it's the effect that counts, not the intent. If officials' associations are saying otherwise, it casts a different light on the passing game for this fan.

The only common ways I'd imagine contact between opponents that impairs the ability of either or both to catch a pass that could've been completed to not be an interference foul would be being forced by contact with one opponent into the way of another, or running in parallel with or converging on the ball more or less between their paths, in which case a shoulder-to-shoulder charge (as in soccer or rugby), a tangling of feet, or a head-on collision would be no interference. I see the "inside track" on the ball or "boxing out" the opponent as deserving protection when both are attempting to play the ball.

Robert

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.