Carolina vs New England last play

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by youngump

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?

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not a foul because Gronk did not do anything to show he was being held. Arms around someone is not enough in a lot of passing plays. Just like arms extended are not enough for a push off. You have to gain some advantage.

Originally Posted by youngump

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..

And that is telling. You have never had to make a call for any of these types of plays and if you did, you would not be working much varsity at least in my experience if you did not consider all the elements of a play. And certainly you would not be at the college level long if what you suggest is all it takes to get a foul in this case.

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

Well I have a problem with someone that does not officiate the sport at all, telling me or others how to call the game or why we make the calls we do. I get it if you want understanding, but you are not in a position to tell me why I should or should not make a particular call. Because you act like I am the one making the philosophy or going alone on this position. I clearly am not and I would not be working college at all if I made calls on the basis you are suggesting here.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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

How? The rule is clear: it can't be DPI if the ball is not catchable.

The philosophy spells out that uncatchable includes a situation where the ball is intercepted before it even gets to the point of the interference. I'm not sure how this is nonsensicle.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

But that shoulder "tap" is what impeded his progress. It kept him from getting his shoulders in front of his hips, and guaranteed that he would either fall backwards or backstep.

I'm amazed that I'm looking at this video loop and seeing about as clear a case of PI as ever occurs, and you're seeing "not even remotely interference".

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

It seems to me that you're taking his comments and projecting it in a way that Jeff never meant to project it at all. I don't believe he's saying that ANY receiver who is hit and because of that hit has no play on the ball must then make some effort to get through the interference to get to that ball. I believe he's saying that in THIS case, the receiver had no chance to get to the ball and had already given up at the point of the potential interference. BIG difference.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not a foul because Gronk did not do anything to show he was being held. Arms around someone is not enough in a lot of passing plays. Just like arms extended are not enough for a push off. You have to gain some advantage.




And that is telling. You have never had to make a call for any of these types of plays and if you did, you would not be working much varsity at least in my experience if you did not consider all the elements of a play. And certainly you would not be at the college level long if what you suggest is all it takes to get a foul in this case.



Well I have a problem with someone that does not officiate the sport at all, telling me or others how to call the game or why we make the calls we do. I get it if you want understanding, but you are not in a position to tell me why I should or should not make a particular call. Because you act like I am the one making the philosophy or going alone on this position. I clearly am not and I would not be working college at all if I made calls on the basis you are suggesting here.

Peace

I'm not telling you have to call the game nor why you make the calls you make. I do come here for 2 reasons. 1. I enjoy the game more the better I understand it. 2. There's a lot of stuff with cross-applicability.
I weigh in for a different reason which is that I want more clarity on a point or I find a logical inconsistency in another persons position. This is one of those two and I'm not sure which because you're not clearly answering my question. If this ball had been clearly catchable, would you not have PI? And then to everybody else I'll ask, is there anyone else here who agrees with that?
My reading of this thread is that almost everybody has this as PI with an uncatchable ball, therefore no flag. A few people have a maybe catchable ball. A few people (not sure any are actually officials) have a catchable ball. And then there is your position which is that you don't appear to believe he was interfered with. I think I may be oversimplifying your position, but frankly you aren't doing a good job clarifying it to me and that is a reflection of communication not College Football officiating.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not a foul because Gronk did not do anything to show he was being held. Arms around someone is not enough in a lot of passing plays. Just like arms extended are not enough for a push off. You have to gain some advantage.

So if the ball was thrown on target to Gronk and the other DB who intercepted the ball wasn't there, you would not have PI on Carolina? From reading the thread, that seems to be what you're saying.

I don't agree that the pass was uncatchable, but I can sort of buy the reasoning, although I don't agree with it since we have proof on video that NFL officials don't always follow this "philosophy".

I do however have a problem with an official saying Gronk wasn't even interfered with, even if the pass was on target. That's just making sh*t up to justify this whole thing.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But that shoulder "tap" is what impeded his progress. It kept him from getting his shoulders in front of his hips, and guaranteed that he would either fall backwards or backstep.

I'm amazed that I'm looking at this video loop and seeing about as clear a case of PI as ever occurs, and you're seeing "not even remotely interference".

If this ball is not intercepted, I most definitely have interference. It's the fact that a defender prevented a ball from reaching the receiver (and not the defender who made the prospective interference) that makes it not catchable.

That "tap" is nothing. The interference is 1 1/2 steps later.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm not telling you have to call the game nor why you make the calls you make. I do come here for 2 reasons. 1. I enjoy the game more the better I understand it. 2. There's a lot of stuff with cross-applicability.
I weigh in for a different reason which is that I want more clarity on a point or I find a logical inconsistency in another persons position. This is one of those two and I'm not sure which because you're not clearly answering my question. If this ball had been clearly catchable, would you not have PI? And then to everybody else I'll ask, is there anyone else here who agrees with that?
My reading of this thread is that almost everybody has this as PI with an uncatchable ball, therefore no flag. A few people have a maybe catchable ball. A few people (not sure any are actually officials) have a catchable ball. And then there is your position which is that you don't appear to believe he was interfered with. I think I may be oversimplifying your position, but frankly you aren't doing a good job clarifying it to me and that is a reflection of communication not College Football officiating.

You are telling me and others how to call a game you do not officiate. It is almost pointless talking to you about this just with that fact alone. And it is really pointless when I am telling you from my experience in training, discussions or actual field experience what these kinds of calls are made based off of. It is OK to disagree, but you are acting like you have the direct experience to even debate this intelligently. I would not go to the Volleyball site and debate a rule that was not enforced when I have never worked a single volleyball game in my life. And I would trust those that were officiating they know more than me in that area of officiating.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by youngump

My reading of this thread is that almost everybody has this as PI with an uncatchable ball, therefore no flag. A few people have a maybe catchable ball. A few people (not sure any are actually officials) have a catchable ball.

Phrases like "maybe catchable" I find funny here. A ruling of uncatchable ball means you are certain the ball could not have been caught by the interfered-with player. If you have any doubt as to whether the ball was uncatchable, it wasn't uncatchable; the provision was not meant to deal with close cases. What I find especially surprising is that some of you look at that video and are certain the ball was uncatchable. I doubt you'd be saying so if you'd been in the position of that back judge, or any other official on that field; I think you're bending over backwards to try to see the final ruling as correct.

I also don't believe the "philosophy" of the intercepted ball as has been stated in this thread was meant to be a material change in the rule. I think those of you invoking that philosophy are mistakenly applying it, leaving out a detail that you were probably told. I'm sure that whoever promulgated that philosophy meant that you need not project the trajectory of the ball beyond the point at which it was intercepted or knocked away in determining whether the ball was catchable, and also that if the pass was touched before or simultaneously with the player-opponent contact, there was no interference. I'm sure they did not mean that the mere occurrence of such an interception or deflection at any point in space and time behind the spot at which the interference took place vitiated an interference call.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are telling me and others how to call a game you do not officiate. It is almost pointless talking to you about this just with that fact alone. And it is really pointless when I am telling you from my experience in training, discussions or actual field experience what these kinds of calls are made based off of. It is OK to disagree, but you are acting like you have the direct experience to even debate this intelligently. I would not go to the Volleyball site and debate a rule that was not enforced when I have never worked a single volleyball game in my life. And I would trust those that were officiating they know more than me in that area of officiating.

Peace

You seem to be confusing my position with those of others here. I have not (I just went back and read them again) posited anything about how this should be called. I have made a couple of contentions about the way you were arguing things and the way I think the rule should be. I could see how the latter might appear to be an argument about how to call it.(*)
You seem to be at odds with the other officials here, not as to result, but as to how you go there. And I should like to understand more about it, but frankly you seem to be unable to calmly discuss it. Given the tenor of some of the other discussions that are occurring at the same time, that's not necessarily unreasonable but as a result I'm not going to try to clarify your position any further, either for my own benefit or for the benefit of others.

(*) Frankly, the idea that only officials should have a take on how a play should be called is ridiculous. Yes we will often have rulings and philosophies that will dictate how it is called. But should and is are not the same word for a reason.

[Welpe]

Drop the personal attacks, folks and stay on the topic at hand.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Drop the personal attacks, folks and stay on the topic say hand.

I'm only stating facts. In two long-running threads that I've participated in, a certain individual has completely ignored facts to blindly defend officials.

youngump stated it pretty well. Most people here are willing to discuss plays rationally without being arrogant and condescending.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Most people here are willing to discuss plays rationally without being arrogant and condescending.

Regardless. Keep it from getting personal.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not a foul because Gronk did not do anything to show he was being held. Arms around someone is not enough in a lot of passing plays. Just like arms extended are not enough for a push off. You have to gain some advantage.

I think you know this is baloney. A player being fouled (held in this case) does not need to struggle to get away to prove to the official a disadvantage is occurring. In every sport there are fouls that are illegal in and of themselves, even if we do not see a disadvantage.

In the Gronk play he was being fouled. If the ball had not been intercepted, that foul would have been called. The official obviously thought there was a potential disadvantage at play here....otherwise he would not have thrown the flag.

[bisonlj]

Here's another video from a college game a couple weeks ago. Rom Gilbert featured this on his weekly picks. I think we can all agree the restriction was much greater on this play and the receiver was much closer to the ball, although it was underthrown as well.

This was Rom's poll question and 76% said there was no foul, even though one was called on the field. Here is the text Rom put in the set up of the video:

When the pass is intercepted before it even gets to a receiver, does that receiver still get pass interference protection? Does the timing of the contact on the Team A receiver matter? Recall that after a ball has been touched "anywhere inbounds by an inbounds player", pass interference rules do not apply (7-3-9-h). Also, if a pass is uncatchable, there can be no DPI (7-3-9-c-1).

DPI and Pass Cut Off - YouTube

The discussion around this play I had with other college officials was very similar to what JRut is arguing. Until I started seeing plays like this on training videos I would have made the same arguments most others are making. The philosophy very clearly in the college level is to NOT consider this a foul. I believe that is coming from the NFL level where most supervisors work. They may not downgrade the call if you make it because technically you are true, but they would likely call it too technical and suggest you not call it in the future.

JRut may come across arrogant and I've argued with him several times, but in this case he's 100% consistent with what we've been told from those working at the highest levels of NCAA.