If we were to change this up a little bit, and the receiver was not too deep on the pass, but instead the defender just locked him up and drove him sideways and the ball was intercepted by a player standing exactly where he was standing, I think everyone here would have pass interference (with the exception of you?). But your argument here would be exactly as applicable. That's a problem for this line of reasoning.
I'm fine with the reasoning because of the interception, he never could have caught this ball anyway, but the argument that he was not interfered with at all because he didn't fight back seems incredibly specious. Am I missing something about what you're positing?

I have had several people agree with me about what Gronk was not doing, so do not be so sure I am alone on this one. ;)


Well then you need to work more college ball or watch the NCAA videos. Because the level of contact and how it affected the play is often talked about. And at least for who I worked with it is not unusual to have a play be reviewed and it suggested that the call was "Too technical" from the supervisors on things like these. And if the action does not fit the specific categories, you will get dinged or downgraded for not following the philosophy. And that is why this discussion is often differnet with guys who primarily work HS and those that work college are often different on these matters.

Peace

The fact that holding philosophies often go against the written rule. As do the philosophies of many rules in many sports. This isn't unique.

It's obvious what I meant to anyone who doesn't have tunnel vision on the subject.

Everything we do is guided not only by the written rule, but also by philosophy. You can't be a top official unless you understand and are comfortable with both.

That might explain why you're seeing this play so much differently than everyone else. This shoulder tap is not even remotely interference. You might notice that Gronk actually does almost exactly the same thing an instant before. The interference begins when Gronk's progress is impeded.

The rule is fine the way it's written. No need for a separate "philosophy" that only makes it easier to get the call wrong.

Nobody's answered the question of what happens if you have one defender tackle the receiver away from the ball while another defender steps into the void and intercepts it. According to your philosophy, that would be a no call.

You haven't answered this one:

"So what should the officials have done differently based on the information they had at the time?"

Not his philosophy, it's the one apparently used by the NFL and college in training. The same as if the defender tackles the receiver while the ball sails twenty yards out of bounds.

So are you saying that philosophy applies to the scenario I stated?

Based on the explanation they gave of their call, they made the "right" call based on what they "knew."

Even if you feel they got this call right, they got lucky.

Uh, yes.

If I'm picturing it the way you are.

To say they got lucky implies they didn't know the rule.

A crew chief I know is fond of saying "Well, that's life in the big city."

Philosophies have been around for years and are here to stay. They are a good thing because they lead to consistent enforcement of rules and help to standardize criteria on judgment calls.

Officials are trained at all levels in camps and clinics that there are six categories of defensive pass interference and if a particular play does not fall into one of these categories, you should not flag it. No where in the NCAA or NFHS rules will you find reference to these categories but they have been developed as a best practice through practical experience. The adherence to these categories helps ensure a more uniform enforcement of DPI and helps to take some of the subjectivity out of the call.

This is just one example, there are many other parts of the game where philosophies are applied and to good effect in my opinion.

The one unfortunate aspect of officiating philosophies is that they are not always well understood by the ignorant, which leads them to think that a play is officiated incorrectly when it was not.

So just as I thought... The policy is idiotic and nonsensical if it applies to the situation I stated.

Maybe you are not alone but I haven't caught anybody who seems to agree that what Gronk did after the contact is relevant. To be clear in my example play, you do not have interference solely because the receiver did nothing to show he was trying to stay in place?

Full disclosure, I'm not a football umpire, I'm an interloper from another board here at the forum. But I've been interloping for several years.

I don't have a problem with the idea that we need to see how the contact impacted the play. What I have a problem with is the contention that a receiver having been hit and as a result of being hit(*) not having a play has to still try and drive his defender back to get a flag from you. I'm not 100% sure that is even what you're saying, but insofar as it is, it doesn't feel right.

(*) That's not this play.