Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
H2o

The Pick Play That Got Gordon Open

Recommended Posts

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 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


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

 

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

I didn't think so from the angle I watched, but I could be wrong. It would be good to get another view. In any event, you simply can't reverse that non-call given the way that PI challenges have been going so far. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes 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.  

 

While I think by rule it was called right I agree that had the officials on the field called it then it would not have been overturned on review. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


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

 

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

 

 

 

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?

Edited by NoSaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant to the discussion. 

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-nfl-week-4-pff-refocused-new-england-patriots-16-buffalo-bills-10

 

Levi Wallace would have enjoyed one of the best statistical performances of any corner this season if he wasn’t tripped up on an uncalled pick play. Although he didn’t make many plays on the ball and won’t show up on any post-game highlight reels, his consistently tight coverage forced Brady into a number of errant throws. He must have been targeted on close to double figures during the game and gave up only a single catch.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

While I think by rule it was called right I agree that had the officials on the field called it then it would not have been overturned on review. 

 

Yeah I dont really have an issue with it not being called, but had it been called I would agree with the penalty simply because of the slight step out to impede the DB even though there was no contact.  

 

Like I said, I dont really have an issue with this play...and to be honest, my biggest issue on this play was that McD burned a timeout challenging it when I felt there was almost no chance to win the challenge.  I do get it as it was a key moment in the game and McD probably strongly felt it was interference, but at that point, the game is a tight game and I wouldn't have wanted to risk the timeout and such a low probability.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

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?


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah I dont really have an issue with it not being called, but had it been called I would agree with the penalty simply because of the slight step out to impede the DB even though there was no contact.  

 

Like I said, I dont really have an issue with this play...and to be honest, my biggest issue on this play was that McD burned a timeout challenging it when I felt there was almost no chance to win the challenge.  I do get it as it was a key moment in the game and McD probably strongly felt it was interference, but at that point, the game is a tight game and I wouldn't have wanted to risk the timeout and such a low probability.  

 

I was okay with the challenge. I thought in real time it was a pick. Had there been any contact I think it would have been overturned...  hard for McD to know there wasn't. 

 

I had more issue with the first challenge. You can't challenge forward progress so you are left charging the mm of a spot. You never win those. 

1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said:


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

 

They do. In the actual wording of the rule. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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. 

So, based on the replay, you believe that receivers intention was anything BUT to trip/hinder Wallace? I disagree completely. His entire point of that route is to get in Wallace’s way. Probably why his foot steps out while he’s staring right at Wallace. Unless you believe it’s just coincidence that his route had him plant his foot right where he did at the exact moment Wallace was coming by to where Wallace just so happened to have to avoid the contact. 

Share this post


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

 

I was okay with the challenge. I thought in real time it was a pick. Had there been any contact I think it would have been overturned...  hard for McD to know there wasn't. 

 

I had more issue with the first challenge. You can't challenge forward progress so you are left charging the mm of a spot. You never win those. 

 

Yes, I agree the first challenge was far worse.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Play sucked - hard to make the call though. Kind of looked like he tried to avoid and defensive guy stumbled. If He had crashed into him maybe they call it. Regardless, unfair play and wish the Bills had tried similar vs what seemed to be basic one on one routes trying to beat man coverage.  

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...