Jump to content

The Pick Play That Got Gordon Open


H2o

Recommended Posts

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/

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.  

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 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. 

 

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

 

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 

 

Its not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

 

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......

 

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another case of Cheats being Cheats.  The picker moved back toward his own LOS and changed direction to get in his way.  But the chickenshit refs had a perfect out.  It was a good challenge by McD even though the NFL ratified the Cheats.  Just another example showing how the NFL fixed this game so the Cheats would win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

 

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 "impede" which is used elsewhere.

 

Yep. This. I looked it up last night. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ta111 said:

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

 

See my last post.  I love it so much when people annoying and with certainty try to tell people they are wrong on something and they are the ones who are, in fact, wrong.  It makes my day.  The rule book clearly says make contact for this situation.  Go back to recess, son.

Edited by Mark80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

 

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 

That may be what the officials yesterday were looked at but they would be incorrect. If you stop your route right in front of the defender, causing the defender to go around, it is PI. Otherwise you are telling DB’s to make sure if a receiver stops immediately in front of you to make sure you contact him to get the call. That certainly isn’t the point tent of the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, he tried to avoid him and barely made any contact.  If the situations was reversed, I’d be furious if that took away a big play.  That the whole point of those routes.  There are way better examples of pick plays to get mad about than that one.  

 

We need to stop trying to blame the refs. We just need to get better. 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 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/

 

Unfortunately, your link is a summary not the rule. From the linked rule there: 

 

  1. Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball;
  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

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

That's not what happened, and it's pretty clear on the replay. 

 

My question is, can you ever call OPI if the ostensibly offending receiver doesn't actually touch the defender? It certainly looked to me like they never actually contacted each other even though the Pats player got in his way. The Bills defender appeared to trip over himself as he tried to get around the receiver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it was a penalty, had it been called during live action.  But its also a very difficult call to make in live action with the lack of actual contact with the trailing DB.  Which also makes it a difficult call to reverse on a review, and lets remember this is the first year even being able to challenge something like that. 

 

For me, this wasn't that big of a deal as this is a total judgement call and the lack of contact didn't help the matter.  There were other plays where I felt were bigger misses by the refs than this one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I agree it was a penalty, had it been called during live action.  But its also a very difficult call to make in live action with the lack of actual contact with the trailing DB.  Which also makes it a difficult call to reverse on a review, and lets remember this is the first year even being able to challenge something like that. 

 

For me, this wasn't that big of a deal as this is a total judgement call and the lack of contact didn't help the matter.  There were other plays where I felt were bigger misses by the refs than this one.  

I don't think you can call it if there's no contact. That's just me, though. I don't know the rule in any depth.

Edited by dave mcbride
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

That's not what happened, and it's pretty clear on the replay. 

 

My question is, can you ever call OPI if the ostensibly offending receiver doesn't actually touch the defender? It certainly looked to me like they never actually contacted each other even though the Pats player got in his way. The Bills defender appeared to trip over himself as he tried to get around the receiver. 

 

That's the one play I would like to see an All 22 review, because it looked like the left foot contacted the Bills player

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

Unfortunately, your link is a summary not the rule. From the linked rule there: 

 

  1. Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball;

 

While that gives an example it also says  this before: Acts that are pass interference include, but are not limited to:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

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

 

Agreed.

 

Seems as though the play there is to run right into the offensive player if you want to get the call.

 

The tight end is looking at our CB the moment the ball is snapped. Never once does he look back at the QB. It's a pick the whole way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...