Long Pass Interference

[Gonzomandela01]

I remember that play, reminded me of the AB play last year against the Raiders. Different outcome though.

 

[Creeper]

While I see your point, and have come to agree that the play in question shouldn't have been called DPI, this looks a bit more blatant on the part of the receiver, if one was to just by a still photo.

I am not arguing the rulebook here. And PI is always a bit subjective.

"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. " There is a caveat that the ball must be catchable. There are some other caveats that do not apply to this situation.

My view is consistency in the application of the rule. They called it against Dallas last year. They called it for Dallas this year. If they didn't call it against Dallas last year and called it this year I would argue one of the two calls had to be wrong.

Looking at both angles of the Colts game play, I think it had to be DPI. Brown sees the ball and attempts to reach for it. The defender does not look back until the ball is already there. Since the ball was long enough but to the ;eft of Brown, the defender impedes Brown's path to the ball. That is the definition of PI. And my fallback position if it is almost exactly the same play as the Raiders game last year only that ball was way underthrown and the receiver had no chance to catch it.

 

[MarcusRock]

While I see your point, and have come to agree that the play in question shouldn't have been called DPI, this looks a bit more blatant on the part of the receiver, if one was to just by a still photo.

A still photo? On a motion penalty? Unacceptable!

 

[Pola_pe_a]

Those of you


Those of you claiming this was not DPI, do you remember this play?

Big difference.
The Vegas WR is trying to get back to the ball. First clip the WR is not and he’s pulling the DB with him.

Vs Colts it should’ve been a no call or OPI. I’d lean no call since they were both grabbing.

 

[JMech]

I'm agreeing with Collinsworth, not listening to him. The defender doesn't have to look back for the ball the entire route.

I have learned that it is best to shut down the sound when Collinsworth is on the air. He is useless. Why he gets paid to feed back BS opinions of others I have no clue. In that game, it was obvious he has a hathred for the Boys. I dislike any commentator with that sort of bias.

 

[Established1971]

Was pulled into the receiver you mean?

receiver was trying to reach around him to get the ball, defender was falling forward, his body weight moving into receiver. He was not pulled into the receiver by the receiver. Collinsworth was wrong

 

[speedkilz88]

While I see your point, and have come to agree that the play in question shouldn't have been called DPI, this looks a bit more blatant on the part of the receiver, if one was to just by a still photo.

It doesn't matter. Refs will call these every time because the CB isn't looking for the ball.

 

[DanA]

It’s a hard game to ref and they generally have to make a decision live without the benefit of a slow motion replay. I can totally understand that “real time” that gets called DPI and I can also understand the OPI calls after watching the reply.

To be honest I think the ref decision is the one you will see more often than not, this is probably the rare exception where that decision is arguably wrong.

 

[Creeper]

Big difference.
The Vegas WR is trying to get back to the ball. First clip the WR is not and he’s pulling the DB with him.

Vs Colts it should’ve been a no call or OPI. I’d lean no call since they were both grabbing.

Sorry for the length of this post but I wanted to get the entire rule into the record because when you read it you can see why the refs could have called both plays either offensive or defensive pass interference (or no interference) and still been within the rules. But in both cases I think the refs decided that because neither defender was making a play for the ball, it was pass interference. Just turning the head is not in the rule book. They have to turn to make a play for the ball. On the other hand, it could be argue that both defenders had position and the receivers would have had to go through the defenders to make the catch. Then there is the note if there is ANY question the contact is incidental there should be no pass interference. Such cloudy rule structure leads to a lot of questionable calls.

ARTICLE 2. PROHIBITED ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR

Acts that are pass interference include, but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch;
(b) Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball;
(c) Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass;
(d) Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball;
(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball;
(f) Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving; or
(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating separation.

Note: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

ARTICLE 3. PERMISSIBLE ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR

Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.
(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players, except as specified in 8-3-2 and 8-5-4 pertaining to blocking downfield by the offense.
(d) Laying a hand on an opponent that does not restrict him in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(e) Contact by a player who has gained position on an opponent in an attempt to catch the ball.

Notes:

(1) When the ball is in the air, eligible offensive and defensive receivers have the same right to the path of the ball and are subject to the same restrictions.
(2) Acts that do not occur more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage are not pass interference, but could be offensive or defensive holding (see 12-1-3 and 12-1-6).
(3) Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation and until the ball is kicked, defensive acts that normally constitute pass interference are permitted against the end man on the line of scrimmage, or against an eligible receiver behind the line of scrimmage who is aligned or in motion more than one yard outside the end man on the line, provided that the acts do not constitute illegal holding. Defensive holding, such as tackling a receiver, still can be called and result in a five-yard penalty from the previous spot, if accepted. Offensive pass interference rules still apply.