Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
H2o

The Pick Play That Got Gordon Open

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, njbuff said:

I was mad in real time when it happened.

 

If I can see wrongdoing with the naked eye, how can these officials not see what was happening?

 

Take 3 points away from NE and the Bills probably win this game.

The ref on the play

image.jpeg.341d5d8367459da7f6f0705157f60b26.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

They haven’t released the video, but I’m guessing that Kraft’s episode involved soft contact. Very soft. 

 

which meant she had to work harder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

bs.jpg

 

*intent is 9/10 of the law

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a moving pick, the guy made no attempt to run a route and just kept moving towards the defender. The Pats get away with it because it puts the defender in a box, do I run over the guy and hope they call it or do I try to run around it? Moving pick, and the league seem to rely on contact being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

bs.jpg

 

*intent is 9/10 of the law

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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”

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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”

image.thumb.png.275cb2c10b2507c96caf115af164e900.png

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


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

image.thumb.png.275cb2c10b2507c96caf115af164e900.png

 

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 by NoSaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Bray Wyatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by NoSaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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...