Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
H2o

The Pick Play That Got Gordon Open

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Patriots meme.jpg

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by NoSaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...