Kelly the Dog Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) So, if I'm a defender and you are behind me I have to make a play on an underthrown ball or it's interference? Sorry, don't see it. This isn't 'face guarding', this is a ball that was underthrown by 5 yards or so. agree to disagree No. Not at all. Face guarding is perfectly legal. If you are a defender, you cannot do three things all at once: 1] You cannot impede the progress of the WR by just getting in his way between him and the ball AND at the same time 2] make contact with that WR with the ball in the air, AND at the same time not look for the ball or make a play on the ball. If you do all three of those things simultaneously, which the Patsie did, it's interference.* *Unless it's a clearly uncatchable ball. IMO, Nelson would not have had time to get there. But I don't think you can rule that uncatchable. Most uncatchable rulings are uncatchable because it's not close and it's out of bounds. This was highly unlikely he could get there but not against the laws of physics. I also think that because the DB was there, and facing him, and between the ball, Nelson didn't make any attempt to get at the ball, he made an attempt to get the penalty. And it worked. If the guy was not there he had a little more time to plant, go back for the ball two steps and jump. He may have been able to do it, he's a big guy. He intentionally tried to draw a penalty, which was a heads up great play by Nelson. Edited September 27, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 agree to disagree You know, if more people would make this simple statement it would be a much more hospitable place. Unfortunately, everyone has to prove he's "right" rather than admit someone else has a point (or at least a different, but plausible, perspective). Friggin' egos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Guy on the Bench Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Sure, if he could completely reverse his momentum by stopping on a dime, run full speed in the other direction, while getting around the defender between him and the other defender. Now try living in reality Looks like Nelson had already stopped before the ball came down. I don't think he had to reverse any momentum. I do agree with you that getting around the DB would have been a helluva trick, but, like Kelly, it doesn't strike me as completely impossible. In general, I hate cheap pass interference calls (and yes, I do hate them in prinicple even when they go in the Bills' favor (though I like them then in practice)). So I probably wouldn't have called this PI. But I can see how a ref sorta reasonably could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) Yep, it was a gift. There were well executed plays in the middle but the beginning and end were both horrible calls by the zebras, one of which took away a turnover on one of the worst decisions I've ever seen a QB make. It was a very dumb pass to make from Fitzy, the one in the end zone, my guess is he was thinking that David Nelson could make a play on it, having said that, that definitely was a penalty by the defender, it's as clear as day. Again, odds are he wouldn't of been able to make the catch, but there is a possibility that he could of, and with that possibility justifies the flag. Edited September 27, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 No. Not at all. Face guarding is perfectly legal. If you are a defender, you cannot do three things all at once: 1] You cannot impede the progress of the WR by just getting in his way between him and the ball AND at the same time 2] make contact with that WR with the ball in the air, AND at the same time not look for the ball or make a play on the ball. If you do all three of those things simultaneously, which the Patsie did, it's interference.* *Unless it's a clearly uncatchable ball. IMO, Nelson would not have had time to get there. But I don't think you can rule that uncatchable. Most uncatchable rulings are uncatchable because it's not close and it's out of bounds. This was highly unlikely he could get there but not against the laws of physics. I also think that because the DB was there, and facing him, and between the ball, Nelson didn't make any attempt to get at the ball, he made an attempt to get the penalty. And it worked. If the guy was not there he had a little more time to plant, go back for the ball two steps and jump. He may have been able to do it, he's a big guy. He intentionally tried to draw a penalty, which was a heads up great play by Nelson. I still don't know. Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to: © Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field. Isn't that what had to happen? The defender had position. He has a right to that position. Obviously I'm being contrary, but this was not a clear cut call. As I said gameday...the flag never would have left my pocket. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heels20X6 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I still don't know. Isn't that what had to happen? The defender had position. He has a right to that position. Obviously I'm being contrary, but this was not a clear cut call. As I said gameday...the flag never would have left my pocket. link The defender would have had position had he turned to face the ball. Instead, his back was to the play therefore that doesn't constitute 'establishing position'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Lets say this was a 10 yard in with the defender thinking it's a go route. The WR sharply breaks back toward the QB in perfect synchronization with the throw. In the process he runs directly into the oblivious DB who is sprinting at full speed thinking it's a go pattern. That would decisively look and be called as PI every single time. Essentially the same situation happened on this play. The only thing that makes it look less 100% PI is that it was a desperate pass and an unorganized broken play. Even having said that Nelson has a right to pursue the ball when it's in the air, and it appeared clear to me that New England impeded his ability to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 The defender would have had position had he turned to face the ball. Instead, his back was to the play therefore that doesn't constitute 'establishing position'. I don't see anything in the rule to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 You know, if more people would make this simple statement it would be a much more hospitable place. Unfortunately, everyone has to prove he's "right" rather than admit someone else has a point (or at least a different, but plausible, perspective). Friggin' egos. Yes. I responded rudely in frustration to AD's rudeness to other posters, thus lowering myself to the inappropriate discourse that frustrated me to begin with. This is a great topic of debate and there have been many reasoned and insightful posts. I apologize to everyone for my derogatory tone, especially to Alaska Darin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 At least it'd be a better bet than mine--a Whitner, a Winfield, a Poz, and an Evans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bladiebla Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 but...I am glad that the Bills were the beneficiaries of that flag. I don't think that we'll see a call like that again. The defender was between the receiver and the ball. He does not have to move out of the receivers way. He's got his turf staked out. If you think the receiver could have run around the defender and gotten back to the ball then you are IMO mistaken. We were the recipients of a gracious call. Take it. Keep it. Remember it. Don't expect one like it again. The key is the DB is NOT looking at the ball, had he been looking at the ball he may have gotten away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Are you seriously saying NO qb has ever thrown a ball anticipating a flag? Can you tell which football world you live in? A good qb will take everything they can get. Football is brutal and you take what you can get. I guess the qbs dont quick snap if the defense isnt ready on the other side? I don't know what on Earth you're trying to get at about quick snaps. Are you suggesting I said that QB's don't do it because they're nice guys and it isn't fair? They don't do it because it's flat out stupid to throw a ball into coverage hoping that you don't get picked off and a ref bails you out. It has nothing to do with taking what you can get. You might throw the occasional jump ball to a long powerful receiver when he has a size mismatch, but it has nothing to do with an official and you're not looking for a flag. They have enough to process already w/o trying to anticipate referees in the heat of the moment, they don't throw balls at covered receivers hoping for penalties. That's just ridiculous. Either way, like everyone else, I surely don't feel bad about it against the just-give-it-to-em Patriots. (Also known as the bull ****-Henry-Jones-pass-interference-on-a-cluster-!@#$-hail-mary Patriots.) Despite being accuse of being anti-Bills, being a Pats fan and bitching about the call, I didn't feel the least bit bad about it because what goes around comes around. And I was going to mention that exact play so I'll just riff off your mention instead; just wanted to be clear that although I'm going off your post, I'm not necessarily referring to you. On that Hail Mary penalty, it was obvious that there was some contact with the Pats receiver while the ball was in the air. So according to the rules that should have been rightly called a penalty. So anybody that is vociferously defending the call that was made on Sunday, should have had absolutely no problem with the interference call that was made on that Hail Mary attempt a few year ago. If you want the rules to be followed completely objectively with no subjective judgment by officials,then both of those calls should have been interference. If you want officials to recognize individual situations and trust them when to keep the flag in their pocket because a team hasn't earned a call, then neither of those plays should have been flagged. Obviously I'm being contrary, but this was not a clear cut call. As I said gameday...the flag never would have left my pocket. I'm sure the flag wasn't going to leave that officials pocket either; until the ball was intercepted. Watch on the replay how late that flag comes out. Not only did it not come out until well after the contact, but it didn't come until well after the interception. I have no doubt that stripes was going to let it go because it was a bad throw into heavy coverage as they almost always do, but when change of possession became an issue he decided to get the flag out. I won't give him too much grief about that decision, but he probably should have fudged it a little and called up a 5yrd illegal contact instead of handing us the 7 by placing the ball on the 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills!Win! Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Brett Favre used to make those type of throws all the time. You hated it when he threw picks but loved it when he made those amazing throws that only he could make. That's what I see in Fitz, he's a risk taking semi-gun slinger Edited September 28, 2011 by Bills!Win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFlutie Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Brett Favre used to make those type of throws all the time. You hated it when he threw picks but loved it when he made those amazing throws that only he could make. That's what I see in Fitz, he's a risk taking semi-gun slinger Ha...SEMI-gun slinger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts