Carolina vs New England last play

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What could he possibly show you? Once his shoulders are pushed back, the only way he can keep from falling backwards is to move his feet backwards. As it was, he did a little of both. Would it have looked more like a struggle if he hadn't tried to stay on his feet, and just fallen on his butt where he'd been standing? Or would it have looked more like a struggle if he'd moved his feet backward fast enough to stay erect? Looks like you want players to draw fouls by play acting, only it's not even clear which way you want them to act!

He was in the process of changing direction when he was hit. His next move was to move his upper body forward, but that movement was prevented by the opponent's pushing him on his shoulders.

And need I remind others in this thread that "catchable" means possible to catch, not "likely"? When the long haired player came in to intercept the ball, you are not to judge whether his presence would've made it merely difficult for the interfered-with player to catch the ball, only whether it would've been impossible. The purpose of the interference rule is to keep opponents from using contact to deprive one of the opp'ty or lessen one's ability to catch the ball; it's not to be presumed that a catch would have been made in the absence of the contact. If a "would've been caught" standard were applicable generally to pass interference fouls, then you'd see all sorts of head-scratching and appeals to the players' demonstrated abilities as receivers.

In case you're wondering, I had no interest in the teams or even knowledge of this game, and am judging solely by the video loop that's been posted here.

The problem the people who are arguing for DPI on this play are failing to recognize is the actions by Gronk are largely irrelevant. Don't apply normal DPI logic and categories. As JRut has stated very clearly several times, the philosophy at the NFL level (and I've heard at the NCAA level...not sure if that's extended across all conferences) is this kind of contact is ignored when the pass is underthrown and intercepted. In most cases whether he could recover and get to the ball absent the contact is not relevant. Don't make this harder than it has to be.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

The problem the people who are arguing for DPI on this play are failing to recognize is the actions by Gronk are largely irrelevant. Don't apply normal DPI logic and categories. As JRut has stated very clearly several times, the philosophy at the NFL level (and I've heard at the NCAA level...not sure if that's extended across all conferences) is this kind of contact is ignored when the pass is underthrown and intercepted. In most cases whether he could recover and get to the ball absent the contact is not relevant. Don't make this harder than it has to be.

If that's indeed the philosophy, it's not in line with the written rule.

You're saying that one defender could tackle the receiver and allow a second defender to make an uncontested interception that the receiver could otherwise have made a play on.

And JRutledge, Gronkowski clearly was changing direction towards the ball until he was shoved and dragged through the end zone.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

If that's indeed the philosophy, it's not in line with the written rule.

You're saying that one defender could tackle the receiver and allow a second defender to make an uncontested interception that the receiver could otherwise have made a play on.

And JRutledge, Gronkowski clearly was changing direction towards the ball until he was shoved and dragged through the end zone.

If you think that is clear, then when you make that call I hope you can justify it better than what the supervisors or the video tape training has shown. I can tell you if I make that call for the reason you suggest, I probably will not be working very long at that level. You can take that for what it is worth.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you think that is clear, then when you make that call I hope you can justify it better than what the supervisors or the video tape training has shown. I can tell you if I make that call for the reason you suggest, I probably will not be working very long at that level. You can take that for what it is worth.

Peace

I hope you're not suggesting that he would have ended up in the same spot absent contact.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by hbk314

If that's indeed the philosophy, it's not in line with the written rule.

That's about par for the course.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by hbk314

If that's indeed the philosophy, it's not in line with the written rule.

So what? Philosophies are important. Do you want to see a holding flag on every play?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

So what? Philosophies are important. Do you want to see a holding flag on every play?

What does that have to do with anything?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

What does that have to do with anything?

Because if you called a foul every time someone wrapped their arms around an opponent, you would not have a play without a penalty. You certainly would have a hold on every single running play, because someone hands are outside of the frame for some period of time and are struggling at some point to get away. But like that part of the game, we consider it a foul when their is clear restriction and the opponent is not just getting beat anymore. And that is where the term, "Stronger legs" comes from. It is clear by the feet of both Gronk and the Panther LB that they were not struggling to move in any direction.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

What does that have to do with anything?

The fact that holding philosophies often go against the written rule. As do the philosophies of many rules in many sports. This isn't unique.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by hbk314

What does that have to do with anything?

It's obvious what I meant to anyone who doesn't have tunnel vision on the subject.

Everything we do is guided not only by the written rule, but also by philosophy. You can't be a top official unless you understand and are comfortable with both.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's obvious what I meant to anyone who doesn't have tunnel vision on the subject.

Everything we do is guided not only by the written rule, but also by philosophy. You can't be a top official unless you understand and are comfortable with both.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

...Nobody's answered the question ...

You haven't answered this one:

"So what should the officials have done differently based on the information they had at the time?"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

when the pass is underthrown

Ultimately, this is the point of contention. I don't think the pass was underthrown. Had Gronk not been interfered with, I believe he would have been at the point of interception at the time of interception. (And in fact, we have a clip from a TV show that shows the physics of the matter which confirm this opinion.)

I understand ignoring interference when the ball is caught 10 yards in front of the interference. I don't agree with ignoring interference that occurs in the immediate vicinity of a catch that allows a second defender an uncontested interception.

As I said before, if they got this right by interpretation, the interpretation is unfair.