The White Hat is right, its the rules that matter. But the rules use the words "Impede," and "Interfere". Both of those are verbs that infere an action. Since there was no "Action" by B to "Impede" or "Interfere", there was no foul. Simply being in the way is not an action that would cause a foul in this instance.

If an A player is laying on the ground, and a B player in an attempt to get to the ball carrier trips over the A player's legs, are you going to flag the A player for triping? Only if in your judgement he tried to trip the B player, if he has move his legs in some way to make the B player trip. The same logic would be used to flag the Defender in the pass play.

It was the Reciever's actions that caused the collision. It was also the QB's inacuracy that led to the Reciever's actions. What you want is to penalize the defense for the QB's poor throw. That doesn't make sense.

[Edited by The Ref of OZ!!! on Dec 14th, 2002 at 12:58 PM]

So you're implying that there has to be motion for something to interfere with something else's ability to move toward anything? Stationary objects (simply being in the way) can impede and/or interfere. Just because it is a verb it does not connote movement.

I concede, this underthrown ball scenario is a tough one. The rule of thumb I go by, though, is that it is incumbent upon B to know where the ball is, just like K. If B knows where the ball is and he interferes with A's ability to move toward the pass, PI. If he doesn't know where the ball is and he interferes with A's ability to move toward the pass, he should have known.

[Edited by ABoselli on Dec 14th, 2002 at 07:40 PM]

Aboselli,
If you are quoting these rules from memory, then you definitely know your rules which makes you a very good official. If you're taking a rules test or someone challenges you about a rule, you appear to have the edge but in this particular case, I know you're wrong. This is a call that requires good and fair judgement ALONG with knowing the rule. As sharp as you are with the rules, you can still learn a lesson from Oz or even me, the idiot ref. You here me speak about using judgement more so than quoting rules. Maybe my weakness is I should learn to stick to the rules more. Maybe your weakness is you should learn how to apply better judgement.

I guess <i>good and fair judgement</i> is where the rubber meets the road on this one. We all have our own versions of good and fair judgement and I try to apply mine on every play along with rules knowledge. I've known guys who sound like they had the rule book for lunch but could have used some common sense for dessert. I try to not be one of them. This, however, is the kind of foul that will elicit all kinds of opinions. Starting with how the rule book says we should call it and going from there seems the best path.

I agree and I don't deny what the rule book says. But like I said, I ain't calling it. Call this "Rule Book PI" and you're going to have to call every other "Rule Book Infraction" that you see. And I've worked hard to put that type of call behind me.

No matter what happens, there's still an uproar (no call/OPI/DPI) so as long as you're prepared to explain yourself, do what you think is right.

I think the rules aren't as clear as we would like them to be in this instance. Some argue OPI, some DPI and some a no-call. I think whatever call you make, you better be confident in it because you will have one coach screaming about the call and you better be ready with your explanation. If you hesitate you will be rode the rest of the game.

Rules are like laws, there are many ways to interpret them.