NoSaint

Ill admit to thinking, maybe twice(?), early in the game that he had done something odd- I think once a head shake/jerk as mentioned and maybe once a smack or something. Didnt really register as noteworthy enough to catalogue for future discussion but I do recall thinking he was acting goofy a couple times.

Who were those?

Its also shady as a backup being a potential issue. I dont imagine him taking kindly to that

To be fair, that culture of inflicting damage has been much worse than it is today.... that we care is the major change.

I’ve been counter general sentiment on a few calls but the hand to the face mask here was a clear and obvious miss from the official.

I think we can all agree more judgement calls about intent will certainly make officiating more enjoyable and consistent. All you need to do here is coach your DB to hit the guy. I promise you the pats properly coach the rule and if their DB is on the ground the receivers there with him

Well, I don’t know what to tell you at this point. If you want to continue believing you’re right, it’s at least a rare play and you won’t be outraged very often by the officials calling it differently than you expect.

They did include it. In literally every clause defining interference. by sticking to your use of that sentence being the defining factor - intercepting the ball could be interference because it hinders the WRs ability to catch it. Knocking the ball down could be. Literally the ref could toss a flag for anything. But they define what things are illegal in the following sections.

Right, and then it defines those acts, pretty universally as contact driven in every clause defining the types of hindrances that are illegal. it seems pretty obvious and clear that the nfl intends contact to be key in the ruling, despite a relative catchall sentence above. If non contact was meant to be a driver don’t you think they’d include at least some sort of reference to it? by the definition you are using literally any pass defense is interference as the DBs job is quite literally to significantly hinder the WRs ability to catch the ball.

Again you are quoting a summary of the rule, while I pulled the verbiage from the rule book for you. It’s quoted in this thread and reads “contact”

Typically an acknowledgement that they can’t write every possible mix of events but that they specifically call out contact leads me to believe it’s considered a pretty key element there. No? If simply obstructing/hindering even without contact was within the regularly intended scope why even include the word contact in it?

Unfortunately, your link is a summary not the rule. From the linked rule there: Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball;

Unless someone posts the rule pointing contrary it’s hard to say you think it should’ve been called. Sure you might think the rule should be changed but the refs should call the rule as on the books. I wont pretend to know the letter of it but the logic they presented made sense and seems consistent

Contact is a key element of the penalty it seems. If a DB ran in front of a receiver and the receiver tripped trying to avoid him we wouldn’t expect a flag without contact to bring a more common but relatively analogous situation to think about

Generally, yes, last I knew the roughness penalties were a standardized amount in the last CBA with annual escalators for that amount, with flexibility to go higher for more egregious offenses, more intense repetition of offenses, etc... but out of the gate for basic situations it was (and believe still is) negotiated consistent terms

He’s got quite the rap sheet for bad hits. Bold play from the nfl but glad to see it.

Yea, I totally said that ? He was supposed to hit the QB there. The collision went poorly.

If our own defender pulled up there completely avoiding contact and the QBs got the first there would be 8 different multi page threads about cutting him.

Unfortunately the defender is going high to stop his mass short and the extension for the first. Once joshs head comes down the target area in the chest range nearly disappears. It’s a hit they try to eliminate but will be very difficult to achieve no matter what the punishment. A 15 yard flag there is catastrophic for the patriots.

Hes also a 5’8 180lbs guy the just stopped a 240lbs guy with momentum. While the flex aged poorly I think it was very possibly just on the high of a big hit and had no idea josh wasn’t popping back up.

Before the game fouts used "The ever daring and often disastrous josh Allen" to refer to him. I objected at the time but could only argue so long today.

Saying the holding flag came before the hit isn’t justifying the hit or arguing a technicality. Heck, I’ve agreed it’s a bad hit, should be penalty and should be fined. And was penalized. And will be fined. All I did was debate with a few folks if the guys goal was to decapitate him or he was just trying to stop him with a big (and poorly controlled) hit. It will never be eliminated fully. I agree it should be minimized though.

You can argue that with no complaint from me but to imply the call on this play was to cancel out the hit doesn’t seem accurate. That’s all I was saying.

Bandit, the holding flag came out before the hit. It wasn’t to ensure offsetting.