Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
H2o

The Pick Play That Got Gordon Open

Recommended Posts

I don't have a link to the video or anything, but imo it was obvious as they get. Fouts couldn't get the Patriots' balls out of his eye sockets enough to be able to describe the reality of what happened. The Pats TE/WR/Wahtever is coming across acting like he is running a crossing route, looks directly at our db, changes his path to cut him off sticking his leg out in the process, but because he magically gets out of the way before blowing him up it is not a penalty? Say the DB doesn't try to protect himself by avoiding the contact and gets injured doing so, because the c*nt clearly threw his leg out there, would that have warranted a flag then? Imo, this is just another example of how the Patriots are held to a separate standard apart from the one the rest of the league is held to. 

  • Like (+1) 12
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, H2o said:

I don't have a link to the video or anything, but imo it was obvious as they get. Fouts couldn't get the Patriots' balls out of his eye sockets enough to be able to describe the reality of what happened. The Pats TE/WR/Wahtever is coming across acting like he is running a crossing route, looks directly at our db, changes his path to cut him off sticking his leg out in the process, but because he magically gets out of the way before blowing him up it is not a penalty? Say the DB doesn't try to protect himself by avoiding the contact and gets injured doing so, because the c*nt clearly threw his leg out there, would that have warranted a flag then? Imo, this is just another example of how the Patriots are held to a separate standard apart from the one the rest of the league is held to. 

 

I noticed that. He is clearly a Pats fan and he seemed to think they could do no wrong.

 

Onto the non-call, it looked to me he stuck his foot out trying to trip up the defender and the Bills player had to maneuver to not get hit or trip, in doing that he still fell but didn't get contacted by the Pats player.

 

Which is why they say it was a non call. But it still should have been called IMO, but anyway......

Edited by Patrick_Duffy
  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only reason it wasn’t called is because the Bills defender avoided the contact. Complete BS. They were talking about it on WGR this morning. It leaves the defender with two options. Option one go around the obvious pick and save injury but your man gets open and you don’t get a flag. Option two nail the pick play, risk injury, go down, and you still probably don’t get the flag because... Patriots. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly OPI. The guy wasn't running a route. He went out of his way to move into the path of the DB and then moved back to dodge him / avoid contact at the last second. Belichik knows that most DBs will try to avoid that contact. Our DB would have been better off plowing into him. It wouldn't have been called our way at first, but we probably would have won the challenge at least.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thunderstruck said:

Clearly OPI. The guy wasn't running a route. He went out of his way to move into the path of the DB and then moved back to dodge him / avoid contact at the last second. Belichik knows that most DBs will try to avoid that contact. Our DB would have been better off plowing into him. It wouldn't have been called our way at first, but we probably would have won the challenge at least.

He even went out of his way to stick his foot out. If that isn’t obvious I don’t know what is. 

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

Wallace should have plowed into him. But then it prob would have been DPI

 

I think that was the problem, Wallace instinctively tried to avoid him and by doing so there was no contact.  Hard to call a penalty when no contact.  If he had tripped completely over  him, likely would have got the call.

Edited by Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the coaches need to coach this kind of thing?  Idk about you, but my natural reaction would be to avoid the leg.  It would take a forced effort to let myself trip.

 

I mean, what a ridiculous thing to have to be coached on just to be on a level playing field with the Patriots.... wtf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

Wallace should have plowed into him. But then it prob would have been DPI

 

That's what I thought when watching it.  The Pats decoy even made like he was going to initiate contact before pulling back... THEN he stuck the leg out.  If Levi had run into him, somehow it would have been the Bills fault and Gordon's catch and run would have counted anyway.

 

I would think that sticking your leg out like that would be unsportsmanlike, even if you whiffed.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Wallace needs to smack into him on that play, make it obvious. The fact that they didn't call it on review is BS. 

Exactly. YOU SEE THE PATRIOTS PLAYER LOOK DIRECTLY AT HIM AND CHANGE HIS PATH TO GET INTO HIS WAY. 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the flag not thrown real time?  That’s the bigger question.  It took a slow motion replay to see that there wasn’t contact.  Real time you’d think that you have to throw a flag there.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BuffaloRebound said:

How is the flag not thrown real time?  That’s the bigger question.  It took a slow motion replay to see that there wasn’t contact.  Real time you’d think that you have to throw a flag there.  

 

 

Not for the ref standing there...

 

Look, if a DB throws a "boo!" and waves his hands as he is closing in on a WR and the WR changes his route or falls down or whatever, it's not a penalty either.  If a Bills TE had done this move, everyone would be applauding his effective and legal fake out.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhh, you can't have pass interference without touching the guy.  It's pretty simple.  As others stated, he should have ran into him.  He didn't.  So no PI.  End of story, unfortunately. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a zoomed in screenshot.

Not only stopped in his tracks, leaned in, and pushed that left leg out, but he's also looking RIGHT at him.

 

 

bs.jpg

 

*intent is 9/10 of the law

Edited by BuffaloBillies
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a penalty.  The Patriots are notorious for this play and always seem to get away with it.  It's bad for the game and is one of the aspects that makes the game 'unwatchable' sometimes.  Along with reviews, bad calls, tv timeouts, awful game flow.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the rule state physical contact or impede?  

4 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

Uhhh, you can't have pass interference without touching the guy.  It's pretty simple.  As others stated, he should have ran into him.  He didn't.  So no PI.  End of story, unfortunately. 

 

You could argue the Pats player was so blatant that he met the definition of ‘impede’ without actually making physical contact.  

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there a one yard from line of scrimmage is allowable element?   He looks to be 1.5 yards past though.....he clearly intended on interfering.   But all teams do these, the Pats probably the most.  Other teams like the Bills should probably do more of them.   Anyone who has been paying attention to the challenges for PI knew there was 0 chance it was getting overturned.  Fouts actually said it was a good challenge, but I completely disagreed, it was just a wasted timeout is all it was.  A timeout that might have been useful down at the goal line when they had to take a delay of game.

Edited by mattynh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

Does the rule state physical contact or impede?  

 

You could argue the Pats player was so blatant that he met the definition of ‘impede’ without actually making physical contact.  

 

It is pass interference by either team when any act by a player more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders an eligible player’s opportunity to catch the ball.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/offensive-pass-interference/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

Uhhh, you can't have pass interference without touching the guy.  It's pretty simple.  As others stated, he should have ran into him.  He didn't.  So no PI.  End of story, unfortunately. 

Wrong. Any act that hinders the defender. There doesn’t need to be contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

It is pass interference by either team when any act by a player more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders an eligible player’s opportunity to catch the ball.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/offensive-pass-interference/

 

Thanks.  He’s more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage and definitely looks like he significantly hinders.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys can argue about this all day if you want, and I haven't seen a lot of replays, but I think it's simple:  

 

1.  It was offensive pass interference.

 

2.  The officials on the field missed it.  

 

And this is the important part:

 

3.  On review, they are going to overturn calls that (a) are obvious (this was) and (b) actually affected the reception.   Wallace was so far behind Gordon before the pick that I think the review official decided that if there'd been no interference Gordon would have caught it anyway.   Yes, maybe Wallace might have made a quick tackle and saved a big gain, but he wasn't ever going in position to break up the pass.  

 

They haven't exactly said that's how the reviews work, but they have said over and over that the purpose of the rule is to avoid unfair result of an obviously missed call, as happened to the Saints in the playoffs.  In other words, it's not enough that the interference was obvious; it also had to affect the catch.  

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

Does the rule state physical contact or impede?  

 

You could argue the Pats player was so blatant that he met the definition of ‘impede’ without actually making physical contact.  

 

The definition requires contact if you look at the rule book.  Specifically it says " Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball; "  Section 5, Article 2, Part e.  It would be a very broad interpretation of the rules to extend that beyond what is specifically stated for this situation as you would have to think they added "making contact" in there deliberately as opposed to "significantly hinders" which is used elsewhere.  When you interpret legal documents, which a rule book basically is, that is how you do it, with intent in mind and here you have to assume they did what they did on purpose.

Edited by Mark80
  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...