If the ball is tipped on the way to a receiver, we do not call DPI in those situations. Why is this so hard to understand in this situation?

Peace

Because that's not the same thing.

If you have a receiver and a defender standing next to each other and another defender comes in and tackles the receiver to the ground, do you ignore that action because the original defender now has an easy interception with the receiver on the ground behind him?

It is if the ball never gets there. Again, you keep wanting everyone to take on your logic and philosophy on this type of play. That is not going to happen. As I have said and others have said to you, this is commonly the philosophy at that level. If you do not want to accept that logic, then don't. I just know I would be happy if I made this call and my partners talked me off of this foul. I would also not call this if I saw the entire play. And this play is not that uncommon. There are often interceptions that are made with some kind of contact before the ball gets to the area of the so-called interference. And touching alone is not a foul. Restriction is a foul.

Peace

My example is closer to what actually happened than a mere tipped pass.

This was not called, and I stand by my first feelings on this play. When I saw this play on replay the very first time live while watching the broadcast, I felt it was not a foul. Nothing you have said is changing that position.

Peace

It's not...after he gets that shoulder shove! If you look at the situation just before that contact, it looks very different.

Ah, but the fantasy players don't!

Regardless how far behind/beyond him? Or how much time between? If so, that philosophy materially changes the rule!

No it doesn't. You just do not understand the philosophy. Hardly any rule does not have some kind of philosophy as to how to rule on something. Officials at the higher levels tend to understand that better than guys you work high school. High school officials often do not have the same level of training or scrutiny or accountability.

Peace

I want you guys in the "No DPI" camp on the NE/Carolina play to watch this play starting at the 4:00 mark in the video:

GameDay: Denver Broncos vs. New England Patriots highlights - NFL Videos

The Denver receiver is running a "go" route straight down the field. Talib for NE does hold the receiver, but Manning severely underthrows the ball and there is zero chance the receiver would have caught it. It gets intercepted, but they stick with the holding call.

How is this any different than last week's play? I thought if the ball was underthrown and not catchable by the offensive player and it was intercepted, they "philosophy" was to ignore the defensive penalty. When Talib catches Manning's underthrown pass he is eight yards in front of the receiver who was running the complete opposite direction.

Edit: Go to 5:20 and watch the PI no-call when the Patriots have the ball in OT also. How is that not DPI?

Holding is not subject to the pass being catchable, it doesn't even require the ball to be thrown.

If a hold occurs prior to the ball being thrown, it is a hold. If it is while the ball is in the air, it is pass interference.

I would probably have DPI on this at the level of ball I work. My guess is that they deemed the contact as incidental to the defensive play being made. Not saying I agree with that but it's my best guess.

The first play in question has nothing to do with the play we are discussing in this thread. The play you are showing is a clear hold for a jersey grab that clearly restricts the movement of the receiver to go up field. The legs of the receiver clearly are stopped or altered in order to keep the defender in an advantageous position. And that is why it was called. The Gronk play had no restriction in the movement if you look at his legs. He did not change direction or stopped completely. If no arms were around Gronk, you would not even think to call a foul. That is why that play is not the same as the play last week.

The second play to me is just a miss. Just like there was a miss on an earlier play in that game, it is another miss. That play has nothing to do with we are talking about on any level. I do not know what level you work, but with better athletes there are times when a play happens so fast you are not completely sure and you do not call anything (which most supervisors want). They would rather have you miss a tight play than call something that clearly was not there. Many high school and lower level officials thank every time there is some contact we have to have something. There is contact in football and this was just a close play to rule on. We do not always get them right, it is OK.

Peace

I think it is a miss. Just like it was a miss when they let Brady run all over the field screaming at everyone afterwards.

Agree on both points.