How would you call this??

[nvfoa15]

WhiteHat,

"I guess we'd have to see the play to make a call on a play like this." ...snip

I certainly agree on this point!

[Derock1986]

Originally posted by The Ref of OZ!!!
The wide receiver is heading down field with the defensive back right next to him on his inside shoulder..... The receiver turns to see the ball thown to the inside, behind the defender's back. The receiver attempts to get to the ball by running into the defender. The defender never turned to see the ball, didn't seem to be aware of where the ball was. What would you have called???

Lets look at the same play with the receiver and defender exchanging positions and see if we come up with the same call.

The defender is heading down field with the wide receiver right next to him on his inside shoulder..... The defender turns to see the ball thrown to the inside, behind the receiver's back. The defender attempts to get to the ball by running into the receiver. The receiver never turned to see the ball, didn't seem to be aware of where the ball was. What would you have called???

If you say defensive PI, how can this be pass interference on the defender but not on the receiver when he did the EXACT SAME THING.

If you say offensive PI, this would be consistent with your earlier call of defensive PI in the original play but I wouldn't agree with this call either.

Another flag I would like to raise is how the original play is worded with "the receiver running into the defender". Had it been worded "the receiver and defender ran into each other" I would have defensive PI. Most of the time in a play like this, the defender is usually unable to stop without running into the receiver. My call is based on the receiver initiating contact, running into the defender.

[Derock1986]

Originally posted by HighSchoolWhiteHat
NVFOA15


My way of seeing this is since both can be called for PI, but the receiver is making an attempt to get to the ball, we have DPI.
I just can't see where we have a no call in NFHS rules when theres contact with the ball in flight.


Just my way of looking at this play I guess.

WhiteHat, I keep saying this and I keep getting slammed by every official in here for it but I'll say it again. The rule book doesn't cover every thing you may encounter in a game nor does it teach you how to be a good official. Some plays you will have to combine knowledge of the rules, fair play, and good judgement. Every thing is not always black or white. Sure, theres contact but who do you call it on? The receiver? He's trying to get to an uncatchable ball (sure its catchable if the defender kindly moves out of his way so he can catch the ball). The defender? he's just defending the receiver but he's not guilty of holding, bumping, or initiating any type of contact--the receiver did! It is also my understanding of this rule (and someone please check the rule book as I'm sure you will) that neither A or B may go through the other in an attempt to receive a pass. The ONLY reason I didn't say offensive pass interference is because B wasn't playing the pass. The best call, in my opinion, is INCOMPLETE!

[HighSchoolWhiteHat]

Derock,

Uncatchable ball?????????????? Thats on sunday. In nfhs its call PI catchable or not.

Like I said I have to see this play.

[Derock1986]

Originally posted by HighSchoolWhiteHat
Derock,

Uncatchable ball?????????????? Thats on sunday. In nfhs its call PI catchable or not.

Like I said I have to see this play.

Whitehat, what I meant was the ball was thrown into the back of the defender. Generally speaking, the ball is not catchable without the receiver running into the defender or the defender removing his body from between the receiver and the ball. Technically speaking, its a catchable pass.

PS-You didn't comment on the role reversals of the receiver and defender. Is it the same or isn't it?

[Edited by Derock1986 on Dec 12th, 2002 at 06:59 PM]

[AndrewMcCarthy]

All things being equal, if the roles were reversed we'd have OPI. But it would be strange to see B turn to the ball while A kept going.

[ABoselli]

I have a hard time picturing A blissfully running down the field, oblivious to everything while B makes a play on the thrown ball. They did just tell A he was the primary in the huddle a few moments ago. Who knows, maybe he forgot.

Interferes with the opponents ability to move toward, catch or bat a pass. So A1 is trying to move toward the pass, B1 is not, and in the process, B1 gets in the way of A1. If this were basketball, you'd say B1 established his position - beat A to the spot. Doesn't matter here. B intefered with A's ability to do that. He's not trying to draw a charge. Both have a right to the ball but if only A is exercising that right, B's fouling by hindering once the ball's in the air. If B is moving toward the pass to catch or bat it and A1 interferes with his ability to do it, then it's OPI. If they're both moving toward the pass to catch or bat it and they get in each others way, no matter how much contact there is, no call. Neither can go through the other to get to the pass but I picture one guy waiting for the pass and the other guy goes over his back or plows him over from the side and catches the ball for the 'not going through a guy' condition to be in effect.

[HighSchoolWhiteHat]

Deock,

yes I'd make it OPI if it was the other way around.

[HighSchoolWhiteHat]

Aboselli

well said

[Derock1986]

Originally posted by ABoselli
I have a hard time picturing A blissfully running down the field, oblivious to everything while B makes a play on the thrown ball. They did just tell A he was the primary in the huddle a few moments ago. Who knows, maybe he forgot.

Interferes with the opponents ability to move toward, catch or bat a pass. So A1 is trying to move toward the pass, B1 is not, and in the process, B1 gets in the way of A1. If this were basketball, you'd say B1 established his position - beat A to the spot. Doesn't matter here. B intefered with A's ability to do that. He's not trying to draw a charge. Both have a right to the ball but if only A is exercising that right, B's fouling by hindering once the ball's in the air. If B is moving toward the pass to catch or bat it and A1 interferes with his ability to do it, then it's OPI. If they're both moving toward the pass to catch or bat it and they get in each others way, no matter how much contact there is, no call. Neither can go through the other to get to the pass but I picture one guy waiting for the pass and the other guy goes over his back or plows him over from the side and catches the ball for the 'not going through a guy' condition to be in effect.

Aboselli, I understand what you're saying about the PI rule but where we differ is on your view of "B1 getting in the way" when A1 runs into him. I don't understand your view--how can B1 be guilty of "getting in the way" when A1 runs into him??? In defense of B1, what was he suppose to do to prevent A1 from running into him? This sounds to me like you're saying B1 fouled because he is positioned directly in the path of the pass so he must turn and attempt to catch the pass OR get out of the way so A1 can attempt to catch it. I think (the more I think about it, i'm certain) you're wrong on this one.

[ABoselli]

Did he interfere with his opponent's ability to move toward, catch or bat the pass? Yes. That's why A ran into him. Why would he be running into him if he wasn't positioned in his path to the ball? Is B attempting to move toward, catch or bat the pass? No.

If it were a scrimmage kick and R1 was running up to catch the kick and he had to veer away from it's path because K1 was standing there, would that be kick catch interference? Sure would be. If K was just standing there and R1 was running up to catch it and he ran smack into K1, would it be? Yes again. K (and B) interfered with his opponent's ability to move toward, catch or bat the pass (or kick).

If some big lug TE is lollygagging in the middle of the field because he knows the ball is not supposed to go to him and the ball is thrown and the safety is moving to intercept when he runs smack into Mr. TE, it's pass interference because he interfered with B's ability to move toward, catch or bat the pass.

[Edited by ABoselli on Dec 13th, 2002 at 09:41 AM]

[AndrewMcCarthy]

The original post had both players running down the field. A doesn't just run into B who's standing there like he's waiting for a bus.

If A turns/stops to get to the pass and B keeps going without looking and they collide, it's pass interference on B and I don't think you can reasonably say that only A ran into B. They ran into each other and their different actions/positions in relation to the ball results in a foul by B.

[Derock1986]

Originally posted by AndrewMcCarthy
The original post had both players running down the field. A doesn't just run into B who's standing there like he's waiting for a bus.

If A turns/stops to get to the pass and B keeps going without looking and they collide, it's pass interference on B and I don't think you can reasonably say that only A ran into B. They ran into each other and their different actions/positions in relation to the ball results in a foul by B.

But Andie,
the original post clearly says A runs into B, not each other. I agree, it seems almost impossible for B not to run into A but it didn't say that.

[AndrewMcCarthy]

It does indeed say that A ran into B. I suppose you could argue that if we were running side-by-side and I took a turn causing us to collide then I have "run into you" but we haven't "run into each other". A discussion like this is how lawyers make money.

That being said, the point is moot as ABoselli has described.

B could be standing still and get flagged. If he's facing the pass then it's a no-call.

[HighSchoolWhiteHat]

Derock,

No matter what you think should have been called its the rules that matter. You don't seem to follow them for some reason. Your opinion doesn't over ride a rule. Sorry. If you want to be a good official rule by the book, not rule by what you think the book should say.