Carolina vs New England last play

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by 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:



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.

I don't believe the play in the video you posted should be pass interference. I think the interference was well behind the ball and the receiver wouldn't have had a play on the ball either way.

Honestly, I think the interference on the Gronkowski play took place closer to the point of interception than the college play.

To me, the college play is not interference, and the Gronkowski play is debatable. I'm just trying to say that while I understand the philosophy that JRut and others have posted about, it's not clearly black and white. If the receiver in the college play had been right behind the defender who intercepted it, I would have pass interference. I don't think he was going to affect the play where he was, even without the contact.

[Adam]

If you think it's pointless debating with someone, then don't. No need to say it's pointless and proceed to do it anyway.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

I think you need to realize that I could give a darn what you buy. I do not work for you or have to answer to you about any philosophy I apply in games. So if you do not want to accept what I told you, then don't. When you work your games, then you can use whatever philosophies you choose. The great thing about officiating is this is a competitive adventure. If someone does not like the way we do things, they can find someone else and they will find someone else. And at that level those guys are evaluated on every play as individuals and as a crew. And for some reason they picked up the flag despite what you or I think about the call.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

You clearly don't work football. One of the indicators of holding is material restriction. If I grab onto your jersey, but you don't pull away from me showing clear, material restriction, it's simply not holding.

You know, that philosophy thing again.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

You clearly don't work football. One of the indicators of holding is material restriction. If I grab onto your jersey, but you don't pull away from me showing clear, material restriction, it's simply not holding.

You know, that philosophy thing again.

Did you have restriction on this play?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

You clearly don't work football. One of the indicators of holding is material restriction. If I grab onto your jersey, but you don't pull away from me showing clear, material restriction, it's simply not holding.

You know, that philosophy thing again.

Honestly, this concept applies to virtually all contact sports. Without advantage, contact is rarely a foul (basketball, football, soccer, chess).

Note, I think the advantage in the contact on Gronk was obvious, and would have been DPI had the pass not been intercepted.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Did you have restriction on this play?

Holding is not on the table since a pass was in the air. It's DPI or it's NOTHING.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

Holding is not on the table since a pass was in the air. It's DPI or it's NOTHING.

The question is, without the interception, would you have called DPI?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

The question is, without the interception, would you have called DPI?

I don't think an interception is required. That second defender could've dropped that pass and I would've passed, as well.

Without that defender in front? No brainer DPI. The BJ's flag was proper absent the second defender in the way.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't think an interception is required. That second defender could've dropped that pass and I would've passed, as well.

Without that defender in front? No brainer DPI. The BJ's flag was proper absent the second defender in the way.

Thank you for answering. I know it's DPI or nothing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't think an interception is required. That second defender could've dropped that pass and I would've passed, as well.

Without that defender in front? No brainer DPI. The BJ's flag was proper absent the second defender in the way.

Sorry, you're right. The direction was "intercepted or knocked down". Presumably, if the ball had been tipped into the air back towards Gronk and company, the DPI would have stood.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sorry, you're right. The direction was "intercepted or knocked down". Presumably, if the ball had been tipped into the air back towards Gronk and company, the DPI would have stood.

No, I don't think so.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, I don't think so.

I would agree. I'd imagine that it would be treated the same as a ball tipped at the line unless the defender completely missed the ball.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

Not only that, but making an apparent struggle a factor in how you rule invites players to act fouled.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I would agree. I'd imagine that it would be treated the same as a ball tipped at the line unless the defender completely missed the ball.

Seriously? Are not time considerations involved?

If a ball is tipped at the line, the interval in which pass interference could be called would be infinitesimal or nonexistent, especially in NCAA or Fed where the restriction on either team exists only if the ball passed the neutral zone. Since interference is immaterial once the ball is touched, that leaves very little time.

OTOH, if the ball has traveled a considerable distance downfield, interference is taken off the table late, and if a spot of possible interference is close to where the ball was touched, then unless it pops high into the air, there will be only a short interval in which players of either side going for the ball can be interfered with legally by contact with opponents.