Carolina vs New England last play

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I could have predicted this post 12 hours ago.

Putting your arms around a receiver while the ball is in flight toward them is never a foul in itself? I would bet we can find plenty of cases to prove otherwise.

And I think many of us could have predicted this response from you. The argument style of taking one sentence someone says and magnifying that statement with "always" or "never" is rarely conducive to good discussion. He didn't say never. He didn't mean never.

On THIS play, the receiver makes no effort to catch this ball - had he done so, and then been prevented from doing so, the case might be different. OTOH, it might not - at the moment the defender first contacts the receiver, there is already a defender heading toward the ball in between the receiver (who is heading away from it) and the ball. The existence of that defender (whether he catches it or not) makes it impossible that the receiver would have ever had a chance to catch this ball. To do so, he would have had to go through the defender covering him (possible OPI) and then gone through the defender who actually caught the ball (definite OPI). There is zero chance this receiver could have caught this ball given the existence of the defender who actually caught it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

On THIS play, the receiver makes no effort to catch this ball - had he done so, and then been prevented from doing so, the case might be different. OTOH, it might not - at the moment the defender first contacts the receiver, there is already a defender heading toward the ball in between the receiver (who is heading away from it) and the ball. The existence of that defender (whether he catches it or not) makes it impossible that the receiver would have ever had a chance to catch this ball. To do so, he would have had to go through the defender covering him (possible OPI) and then gone through the defender who actually caught the ball (definite OPI). There is zero chance this receiver could have caught this ball given the existence of the defender who actually caught it.

Gee, you think maybe he seemed to make no effort because the opponent holding him was in his face at that moment so he couldn't see the ball?

This is about as textbook a case of pass interference as you could illustrate. One player has turned around to play the ball while the opponent has his back to the ball and wraps him up. The ball comes down in a place where you can't say the player facing the ball could not have gotten his hands to. The BJ is about as well placed as I could imagine to see not only the act of interference but also the path of the ball; I don't see why anybody thinks he'd need help to make that judgment. And just in case you've never seen one player beat two opponents to the ball on a play like that, I'll tell you it happens.

For those of you saying A87 was already going backward when he was contacted, suppose he had the ball when he was tackled in the field of play like that. Where would you spot the ball? I bet you wouldn't've assumed all that backward momentum was his own in that case.

And as to the long-haired player who caught the ball, I could see A87 possibly getting shoulder to shoulder with him and having a shot at the ball had the other player not interfered with his opp'ty. "Uncatchable" means "impossible to catch", and how can you say that was impossible? Of course if the ball were intercepted or deflected a sufficient distance in front of the interfered-with player to have made it impossible for him to get to in time, that's one way a pass could be uncatchable, but the time and distance in this case are not like that.

[Robert Goodman]

Look at A87's shoulders & hips when B5- puts his hands on those shoulders. Once B5- gives him that shove, it's all over, because it's all A87 can do to stay on his feet, much less try to move to the ball. A87 started in position to change his momentum, but after that shove, his shoulders were behind his hips and he had no further chance. Therefore that shove on the shoulders was the pass interference; putting his arms around him and getting face mask to face mask was just window dressing. Erase B5- from the video at the instant just as that shove begins -- which you're justified in doing because he's making no play on the ball -- and then it's just A87 and the long-haired B guy, and you could easily imagine it being a contest for the ball.

[PAUmpire]

My thought exactly.

I was shocked they picked the flag up. I think without the contact Gronk has a shot at the ball, albeit a small one. Once he is denied that opportunity illegally that is DPI.

But like MD said, this is in fact a judgement call. So on this play half of us would throw, half of us wouldn't. That's just the nature of the game and on Monday it worked against New England.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Gee, you think maybe he seemed to make no effort because the opponent holding him was in his face at that moment so he couldn't see the ball?

This is about as textbook a case of pass interference as you could illustrate. One player has turned around to play the ball while the opponent has his back to the ball and wraps him up. The ball comes down in a place where you can't say the player facing the ball could not have gotten his hands to. The BJ is about as well placed as I could imagine to see not only the act of interference but also the path of the ball; I don't see why anybody thinks he'd need help to make that judgment. And just in case you've never seen one player beat two opponents to the ball on a play like that, I'll tell you it happens.

For those of you saying A87 was already going backward when he was contacted, suppose he had the ball when he was tackled in the field of play like that. Where would you spot the ball? I bet you wouldn't've assumed all that backward momentum was his own in that case.

And as to the long-haired player who caught the ball, I could see A87 possibly getting shoulder to shoulder with him and having a shot at the ball had the other player not interfered with his opp'ty. "Uncatchable" means "impossible to catch", and how can you say that was impossible? Of course if the ball were intercepted or deflected a sufficient distance in front of the interfered-with player to have made it impossible for him to get to in time, that's one way a pass could be uncatchable, but the time and distance in this case are not like that.

[zm1283]

Apparently they've changed the rule since 2009:

Bill Belichick Shows Patriots Lions-Browns Play From 2009 - Business Insider