Carolina vs New England last play

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Look at the video in that link on my last post at the end of Page 7. Either they changed the guidelines or the crew back then didn't get the memo.

The Lions receiver is interfered with in the back of the endzone while another Browns defender intercepts the pass at the front of the endzone, short of where the interference happened. They called DPI, ran a play with no time on the clock, and Detroit won by one point.

I believe you, but that may well have been the play that prompted a change in the guidelines. Or those guys missed it and got downgraded later. Or any number of things.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

I believe you, but that may well have been the play that prompted a change in the guidelines.

Do you really think the NFL deliberately instituted guidelines (which are to be used only in case of doubt as to a ruling) that would overcome considerations of time and distance? And in figuring the time & distance #87 would've had to reach the ball, count from just as the opponent extended his hands to push on his shoulders. Some of you are referring to "front of the end zone" and "back of the end zone", while in reality the contact occurred very close in space to where the ball was intercepted.

And the claim that had he not received that push, #87 would've interfered with that opponent to reach the ball is absurd, because the opponent had his back turned and wasn't trying for the ball.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And the claim that had he not received that push, #87 would've interfered with that opponent to reach the ball is absurd, because the opponent had his back turned and wasn't trying for the ball.

I don't know about NFL or NCAA, but when has "trying for the ball" been a consideration for PI? The defender is entitled to his position on the field. Even if the defender isn't trying to get to the ball, he cannot be pushed or pulled to get to a pass in flight.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And the claim that had he not received that push, #87 would've interfered with that opponent to reach the ball is absurd, because the opponent had his back turned and wasn't trying for the ball.

The statement is that he would have had to interfere (OPI) with the defender who made the interception. IOW, legally catching the ball would have been nearly impossible.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

The statement is that he would have had to interfere (OPI) with the defender who made the interception. IOW, legally catching the ball would have been nearly impossible.

That's who that means? Look at their relative position before the interference; I think they each had a plausible line on the ball that didn't go thru the other.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And the claim that had he not received that push, #87 would've interfered with that opponent to reach the ball is absurd, because the opponent had his back turned and wasn't trying for the ball.

His back turned and wasn't trying for the ball? He CAUGHT the ball. Are you watching the same play?

[ajmc]

Somewhere there's an old saying, "There are none so blind as those who will not see", can you imagine what that says about those who refuse to even look?

[bisonlj]

In this context "uncatchable" only comes into play because by philosophy (or maybe rule) a pass intended for an eligible receiver is underthrown and a defender was in a much better position to intercept it. Any discussion of whether Gronk could have come back for it is irrelevant. We have seen several plays like this from the CFO and told to not flag it for DPI. It's also why this would likely be DPI if the other defender isn't there to intercept it. I don't know if this is in the NFL philosophy/rule, but I believe this is exactly how our NCAA supervisors want this called.

The comments Blandino made said the judgement of the officials on the field was the restriction was so close to when the ball was touched by the defender. That has nothing to do with "uncatchable". It's a timing discussion and could be easily argued by those watching the video.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

In this context "uncatchable" only comes into play because by philosophy (or maybe rule) a pass intended for an eligible receiver is underthrown and a defender was in a much better position to intercept it. Any discussion of whether Gronk could have come back for it is irrelevant. We have seen several plays like this from the CFO and told to not flag it for DPI. It's also why this would likely be DPI if the other defender isn't there to intercept it. I don't know if this is in the NFL philosophy/rule, but I believe this is exactly how our NCAA supervisors want this called.

The comments Blandino made said the judgement of the officials on the field was the restriction was so close to when the ball was touched by the defender. That has nothing to do with "uncatchable". It's a timing discussion and could be easily argued by those watching the video.

Not a fan of that if that's the case. Just because a defender may have better position doesn't mean he should get a free shot at the ball.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Not a fan of that if that's the case. Just because a defender may have better position doesn't mean he should get a free shot at the ball.

Think of it like the ball being tipped before it gets to the receiver. That contact is ignored as well but it no less prevents the receiver from getting to it. There are lots of gray areas of judgement and a good official limits the gray. This philosophy is assuming the receiver would have a hard time catching the ball that is underthrown and intercepted by someone else.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

His back turned and wasn't trying for the ball? He CAUGHT the ball. Are you watching the same play?

Not the one with the long hair, the one who pushed #87.