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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Regardless. Keep it from getting personal.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Interception just occurred in the Panthers game...DPI initially flagged...ball was intercepted in front of the contact. Officials picked up the flagged and explained that the interception occurred well in front of the area of where the contact occurred.

I don't think anyone's disputing that. That wasn't the case on the Gronkowski play.

In your opinion.

I wouldn't think that a couple yards meets many people's definition of "well in front of."

Just "in front of" can be enough.

Ask them whether a player can push an opponent off the ball's path, then turn around & catch the ball in front of where they made player-player contact, and vitiate the interference thereby.

You are describing a completely different play. In your scenario the player making contact is the same player who intercepted the pass. In the two examples mentioned here (both involving Carolina) the defender on the receiver and the intercepter are two different people.

That really shouldn't matter. One player clearing out a receiver while another player picks the ball off in a space the receiver could have gotten to is still pass interference.

Isn't the bolded a judgement call?

The key is an underthrown pass. I'm sorry you are failing to accept the stated philosophies used by most NCAA conferences and apparently the NFL. These are not personal philosophies of the people on this board. You can disagree with the philosophy all day but if you work at those levels and don't follow those philosophies you will not be working long.

This is similar to the common philosophy of not calling a hold on the backside tackle when the sweep goes the other way. You may be technically right using the letter of the rule, but if you called that every time you saw it, you wouldn't be working long.

The difference is that a hold on the other side of the field isn't likely to impact the play, but the scenario I cited completely determines the outcome of a play.

If the philosophy calls for a no-call of pass interference on a play where a receiver is physically prevented from reaching a pass he could have gotten to, merely because the ball is picked off before it gets to the position he was forced to, then the philosophy makes zero sense.

Unless we're imagining a different play.

My last word on this dead horse... you seem obsessed with the thought that Gronk could have gotten to the pass... Only you, Jeff, and maybe 2 other posters think that. The Science thing, at best, demonstrates that it's conceivable that he could have gotten to the BACK of the player who made the interception. While I dispute even that - the fact is, the interceptor (who was not the interferor) was between Gronk and the ball. Gronk COULD NOT have "gotten to the ball" as you say.

The philosophy of the no-call is not as you state above. Simply because in no one's opinion could the receiver have gotten to the ball - because (at the very least) there's a body in the way.

Time to bury the horse.