The Pick Play That Got Gordon Open

[peterpan]

10 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

You think Belichik coached him to blatantly try to pick Wallace like that?  They haven’t won all those Super Bowls and Division titles because of ref incompetence.  That was a dumb play by the Pats player.  

Sure they have.  That and cheating

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, BuffaloBillies said:

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.

 

 

 

*intent is 9/10 of the law

 

I think "possession" is what you mean....

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said:

They dont include the word contact, the term is significantly hinders

 

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”

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, NoSaint said:

 

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”

 

Link? I clicked on the actual rule definition and it still read the same, and the part you pulled out was an example of PI

[Big Turk]

It wasn't a pick play, he never touched Wallace because instead of running into him and drawing the call, Wallace tried to run around him and ended up tripping from being off balance...

 

It SHOULD have been a pick, but Wallace helped him out.

[billsbackto81]

2 hours ago, Ta111 said:

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

Think your wrong on that one bud. Contact has to be made to be considered interference. If a DB is beaten on a route but is able to put his arms up and deflect the pass without looking for the ball or making contact with the WR is it pass interference? No. Levi Wallace did it Week 1 to Robbie Anderson who had him beat on a deep shot but was able to deflect though he had no idea where the ball was.

[Bray Wyatt]

4 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

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”

 

There is the whole rule, it says significant hinders in the definition. 

 

If there is another place that has the rule, please provide it as I have not found one

[BarleyNY]

No contact so it was not a penalty.  Acting like you’re going to hit someone and then not hitting them can’t be a penalty.  Who could officiate that?  What team wouldn’t lose its (crap) if a call like that went against them?  Imagine losing to the Pats because we had the winning TD called back because Beasley acted like he was going to hit Gilmore, but didn’t and still got an OPI call for it.  This place would melt down. 

 

The Pats are extremely well coached.  They augment that by cheating in innumerable ways.  They also have an incredibly good QB. The combination has really paid off for them.

 

Next time our DB better not break stride.  The coaches need to cover stuff like that. 

[NoSaint]

5 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

There is the whole rule, it says significant hinders in the definition. 

 

If there is another place that has the rule, please provide it as I have not found one

 

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.

Edited September 30, 2019 by NoSaint

[Bray Wyatt]

3 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

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?

 

it says includes but not limited to for those parts as I previously stated, so those arent the only ways to have pass interference. I would counter your argument by saying, if they wanted contact to be the basis, dont you think they would have stated so? Something along the lines of "contact that significantly hinders"?

 

They chose those words for a reason, and I imagine it was for cases like this

Edited September 30, 2019 by Bray Wyatt

[NoSaint]

4 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

it says includes but not limited to for those parts as I previously stated, so those arent the only ways to have pass interference. I would counter your argument by saying, if they wanted contact to be the basis, dont you think they would have stated so? Something along the lines of "contact that significantly hinders"?

 

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.

Edited September 30, 2019 by NoSaint

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

 

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.

 

Article 2 is not the definition lol Article 1 is, you see that where it says Definition

[NoSaint]

Just now, Bray Wyatt said:

 

Article 2 is not the definition lol Article 1 is, you see that where it says Definition

 

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. 

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, NoSaint said:

 

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. 

 

Yes it is a rare play, it is pass interference, and they blew the call. Im not outraged over it

[clearwater cadet]

why cant we run plays like this

[SF Bills Fan]

That is a bread and butter play the Patriots have run for years. It's borderline illegal and it is total BS. The Pats player feigns trying to move but the path is already blocked. That's been springing Edleman open for years. It is another reason to hate the Pats. 

[row_33]

51 minutes ago, peterpan said:

Did he really not hit him? The few guys I watched with all thought so.  Bills fans but also jets and bears fans all thought the leg made contact

 

definitely contact if you hate the Pats

 

 

[Rock'em Sock'em]

6 minutes ago, clearwater cadet said:

why cant we run plays like this

Because it will be called offensive PI on review 9 times out of 10

[Kmart128]

3 hours ago, Bills2ref said:

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. 

 

Don't think contact was avoided. I think he tried to avoid contact but Patriots player stuck out leg and tripped him.

[DuckyBoys]

it should have been called based just on the fact that the Pats TE is making zero effort to run a route  He is out there setting a screen like in basketball and even shuffles over to the side

[clearwater cadet]

why cant we run plays like this

[row_33]

i've heard that 8 times yesterday the officials didn't bother blowing the whistle and let an obviously stopped play continue for a long time, the Pats "TD return" on the Allen forward pass that was clearly incomplete being one of them

 

 

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, Bray Wyatt said:

this is the only wording of the rule I can find, do you have another or a link?

 

Was posted above by @Mark80

[OldTimer1960]

Objectively, you can't expect to beat the Pats if you score 10 points.  Offense and Special Teams failed to do enough to take advantage of a tremendous effort by the defense.

[TC in St. Louis]

In the Bills Backers Bar here in St. Louis, I yelled "pick!" when it happened, and when Coach challenged it, I thought they'd overturn it.  Especially when you see the guy stick out his foot.  Plus, it was their only somewhat big play of the 2nd half, so you know something was wrong.  

 

What got me was the holding call on the successful assault on Josh Allen.  They could have doubled down on the guy....personal foul and unsportsmanlike contact for standing like a thug, taunting Josh as he slept.  That would have made it fair.  It's one thing to smash into a QB's head with your helmet.  It's another to stand above him admiring your work.

 

Another thing:  isn't it illegal for a DL to hurdle the offensive line on a field goal attempt?  

 

And Josh's last pick shouldn't have counted.  

 

These are huge plays. 

[BuffaloRebound]

The defenders objective is to hinder the pass catcher.  The pass catchers objective is to run a route to catch a pass.  If you’re gonna let pass catchers blatantly impede the defender, then they’re not pass catchers.  They’re blockers.  That’s why offensive linemen are not allowed downfield.  The Pats player wasn’t even pretending that he was running a route.  

[CaptnCoke11]

I thought they made the right call.. couldn't see any clear evident contact 

[K-9]

4 hours ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

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

It would have been OPI if Wallace plowed into him. Any contact at all and it would have been OPI. 

 

No contact, no foul. 

[CEN-CAL17]

4 hours 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;

The point is contact should have happened. But our defender had to dive out of the way to avoid guaranteed contact otherwise. Because so, the defense is technically penalized giving the offense a first down.

 

If the Pats player would have maintained his course fine.... but being he lunged at and stuck his leg In the path should be considered an attempt to block. 

[Dr. K]

5 hours 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. 

 

[Solomon Grundy]

5 hours 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. 

It's some BS!!

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Rock'em Sock'em said:

Because it will be called offensive PI on review 9 times out of 10

Can you point to any penalty flag for offensive pass interference EVER thrown on a Bills player for running a noncontact pick play? Maybe we should try it? By the way, I think we are with Daboll as the new receivers learn the playbook and start to work

better in coordination. I actually like watching well executed receiver pick/rub plays just like I enjoy watching really well executed picks in the NBA. 

[BrainwashedBillsFan]

5 hours 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. 

The pats have been doing this for last 20 years and finally due to the league change of reviewing plays our coach finally shed some light on it by challenging this play. But would never overturn due to the pats deep pockets 

[Bob in STL]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

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.  

Totally disagree with 3.  The defender may have been able to defend the play or at least cover it for a short gain.  It is not the job of the referee to guess what would have happened, only to review what did happen.  

 

Are officials reluctant to overturn pass interference challenges?   Perhaps they fear all penalties will be challengeable next? 

 

This crew did a very spotty job IMO.  

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, 1ZAYDAY1 said:

The point is contact should have happened. But our defender had to dive out of the way to avoid guaranteed contact otherwise. Because so, the defense is technically penalized giving the offense a first down.

 

If the Pats player would have maintained his course fine.... but being he lunged at and stuck his leg In the path should be considered an attempt to block. 

 

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 

Edited September 30, 2019 by NoSaint

[CEN-CAL17]

8 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

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 

I expect the refs to miss that kind of stuff 90% of the time. But if it’s obvious and a player breaks off the route lounges and sticks their foot at another player, the defenders judgment is to not get hit a dives to not gain contact, again it’s obvious which it was.... and challenged. That’s gotta be OPI. Cause what’s gonna happen is the same thing is gonna happen, defender will get floored and coaches won’t challenge cause they are afraid refs still won’t call it.

 

You can’t ask a 185 lb CB to run into a 250 TE... what Wallace did is what most would do. At some point safety has got to play a part as well as just crap cheating football 

[BuffaloRebound]

5 minutes ago, 1ZAYDAY1 said:

I expect the refs to miss that kind of stuff 90% of the time. But if it’s obvious and a player breaks off the route lounges and sticks their foot at another player, the defenders judgment is to not get hit a dives to not gain contact, again it’s obvious which it was.... and challenged. That’s gotta be OPI. Cause what’s gonna happen is the same thing is gonna happen, defender will get floored and coaches won’t challenge cause they are afraid refs still won’t call it.

 

You can’t ask a 185 lb CB to run into a 250 TE... what Wallace did is what most would do. At some point safety has got to play a part as well as just crap cheating football 

 

Exactly.  These refs are looking for the needle in the haystack due to the ridiculousness of the rule book and miss the obvious common sense things.  

[26TrapDraw]

6 hours ago, Haslett_Stomp said:

As I tell my Pats* bride every week, there is a reason everyone outside of New England hates the Patriots*

I hate you for marrying her.

[TigerJ]

When it comes to challenging penalty calls/non-calls, Al Riveron seems to be more interested in affirming the officials than getting the call right.  There have been lots of challenges on penalty calls/non-calls that have seemed obviously wrong to fans and broadcast teams alike that Riveron has not overturned.  This was not a unique situation.

[wvbillsfan]

9 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

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.  

In an instance like this why don’t we coach to make it obvious. I’m not sure what the penalty would be but if our db would’ve laid this guy out who gets the penalty?

Is the penalty less than the 40 yards they gained on this play?