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???

Assuming the pass has crossed the NZ this sounds like defensive pass interference
NF 7-5-10a > It is PI if any player of A or B who is beyond the NZ interferes with an eligible opponent’s opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass

I agree, that's what the rule book says... But think about what that implies. Any time the QB finds all of his receivers covered, or just simply to gain 15 yards, all the QB has to do is throw the ball behind the defender, and you'll call "Pass interference" and he'll be awarded 15 yards. Is that fair to the defender?

Thats called DPI 15 yards and a 1st down

now if the defender turned to see the ball we may have OPI, but you said he didn't so we have DPI

The reciever can come back for the ball, but if the defender runs into him (while the balls in the air)without making an attempt for the ball I got DPI

That's what makes PI such a fun call! It is incumbent on B to know where the ball is, but there is so much gray area that each call must be made on it's own particular merits. If the pass is way underthrown, I won't throw it unless the defender puts his hands on the A player to keep him from moving. If it's just a little underthrown and A is trying to make a play on the ball and B doesn't look for it but runs into A, I'll throw it. If B never looks back for it, in most cases he'll get a flag from me if he hinders A.

With high school kids, QB's don't always get it where they want it, and receivers have to adjust, come back, slow down etc. It's always a dicey call.

Yes, maybe it's a bit unfair but B has to know to look back or you'll get some cheap-looking fouls.

I don't mind giving A this "advantage" in the passing game for HS or lower levels. In the NFL sometimes the DPI calls are ridiculous.

Oh no, not another one. I can see I am going to be the most controversial official in here. In the original post, you said the receiver runs into the defender. If the defensive player is running with the receiver and the receiver initiates contact then I have a no-call. If the defensive player is aware and playing the ball and the receiver intiates contact, I have offensive pass interference. Just because the defensive player is unaware of the location of the ball and running blindly with the receiver I do not agree that it is PI on the defense if the receiver runs into the defender. The defensive player has every right to his position as the offensive player does. If the defensive player runs blindly into the receiver, then definitely PI but I would not expect the defender to give up his position on the field so the receiver can better position himself to receive the pass. The defensive back unfairly loses most of these calls but I see no reason to penalize either player in this particular situation.

<i>...eligible opponent’s opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass</i>

Nothing in there about initiating contact. Lets say B1 is just standing there and is run into by A1, who is attempting to move toward, catch or bat the pass. B1 is not. He's just standing there. A1 did indeed initiate contact (more of a basketball term) but B1 interfered with A1's ability to move toward, catch or bat the pass. 'Right to position' is also a basketball term that has no bearing here. If they're <i>both</i> trying to move toward, catch or bat the pass - different story.

Getting back to the original example, B was not attempting to move toward, catch or bat the pass, but A was. Just like on a kick, it's incumbent upon B to know where the ball is. If it's terribly underthrown, nothing. If it's not, and A is unable to change direction due to B's position, throw it. Now what's horribly underthrown vs. kind of underthrown vs. kind of off line.....? That's why we get the big bucks - except in Oregon apparently.

That being said, if you get a room full of 100 officials and derock, and then show a series of pass plays and say, "after each play, whoever thinks there is pass interference, raise your hand", you'd probably get half the guys raising their hands after each play and the other half shaking their heads no. It's that subjective.


[Edited by ABoselli on Dec 11th, 2002 at 10:57 PM]

I agree..... No Call!!!
 

That's how I called it, and like ABoselli says, about half the officials I work with call it one way, and the others the other way.

I especially agree with Derock1986, it was a no call. The rule reads "interferes with an eligible opponent’s opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass..." To me, the word "interferes" implies an action which impeads the opponent's opportunity. Simply running down the field is not that action. If the defender does anything with his arms or hand to impead the reciever, then he's going to get a flag from me. But he has every right to run down the field, whether he knows where the ball is or not.

I can't find the term "Unfair advantage" anywhere in the rulebook, but it seems to be a good term to use in this example. All of us know, we could throw a flag on every play, and, like someone else said on this forum, we'd spend 2 hours just marching off the yardage. I try to judge a situation like I described at the beginning of this thread by the ideal of "Unfair advantage". The defender was not attempting to take an unfair advantage of the reciever. He didn't have a grasp on his jersey, or hold him so he couldn't get to the ball. If I'd thrown a flag, I'd have given an "Unfair advantage" to the offensive players. Like I said above, all the QB would have to do if he got in trouble, is throw the ball at the back of a defender, and the offense would get 15 yards, and that's an "Unfair Advantage"!

You guys can throw that flag all you want to. I'm not. If you do, you'd better be throwing every hold you see as well. :(

I agree with BBR (and even Derock!) that this a no call. I can't see how you can call DPI when A's action hinders himself from catching the pass. I can't see OPI since B is not attempting to catch the pass; how can you "hinder" a player from catching a pass their not attemping to catch?

I disagree
 

A does not hinder himself- the defender was between A and the ball. B interferes A’s opportunity to move toward the ball while making no attempt to get to the pass himself. It's DPI.

You can say that B has every right to run down the field, whether he knows where the ball is or not, but ONLY IF he doesn't interfere with an eligible opponent’s opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass.

In this case he interferes. Flag down.

If youre talking nfhs rules its pass DPI, reguardless if he can catch the ball or not. If a is coming back and trying to make a catch on the ball and b runs threw him thats dpi to me.Why would it be a no call? There was contact while the ball was in the air.so you better have dpi or opi.
nfhs rules

WhiteHat, Andrew, etal,

The original play has A running into B in order to catch the ball. B is not aware of the ball. A and B are running down the field side-by-side. A turns to see the ball and runs into the defender in order to catch the ball. This is at most OPI. According to the original play, B makes no attempt to catch the ball, wave arms, etc. to prevent/hinder A's opportunity to catch the ball; all contact is initiated by A. (Yes, I know that intention and catchability are not requirements for PI per NF rules.) All B is doing is occuping his rightful spot on the field! In the situation described, B need to do more than just be there to draw DPI.

NVFOA15


The receiver turns to see the ball thrown to the inside, behind the defenders back. The receiver ATTEMPTS to get to the ball by running into the receiver.
To me this is DPI, you do not, by NFHS rules have to be trying to catch the ball for it to be dpi. Also the receiver ATTEMPTS to get to the ball by ruuning into the defender,(OPI???)MAYBE.

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 think of it like this? If a receiver is coming across the field and see's the ball thrown behind him. He changes directions and while running back to get to the ball he runs into the defender(who doesn't know the balls coming)(not that he needs to either) while the ball is in flight. DPI or OPI which one?

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

What i think is the key word here is ATTEMPT even though you don't have to make an attempt to catch the ball(in NFHS) at lets the receiver did and the defender didn't.

Just my way of looking at this play I guess.

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!

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.

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!

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]

Role reversal
 

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.

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.

<i>Interferes with the opponents ability to move toward, catch or bat a pass.</i> 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.

Deock,

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

Aboselli

well said

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.