Carolina vs New England last play

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

[SamG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.