Recording of the PI in the End Zone

[signbabybrady]

When does the part about the ball actually being catchable come into the equation?

That ball was so underthrown that there was no way Nelson was getting back to it. I say no PI because of uncatchable ball.

Another question why does a defender have no right to his place on the field unless he looks back at the ball?

Hypothetical: if I know the exact spot you are going to throw to and I line up there before the snap and never move but never look back and a WR over runs the spot then runs directly into me trying to get back to the spot that I would get a penalty under the current rules even though I didn't move inch from presnap to the end of a play

I guess we dont even really need a hypothetical for this because the Sergio play is a perfect example. He is trailing his defender unsure wether the ball is out or not and his defender reached the back of the endzone and turned around to come back to the field of play and apparently Sergio has no right to his spot and has to move to allow the receiver his already occupied space.

Honestly I think this is a case where the rule is either written wrong or applied wrong. IMO this should only apply to a DB who is continuing to run down field while the receiver is trying to come the other direction. In this case Sergio would not be continuing to run up field because there was no more field to continue not to.

 

[Joker]

1st and ten, inside the ten...up 21-0...you protect the rock and try to score ,you get at least three points for a 24-0 lead...you get the 7 and it's practically game over...and there's not any of this teeth gnashing over an iffy defensive penalty.

 

[Haley]

The problem is that Brown did not cut off the path of the receiver. Nelson is the one who stopped and grabbed on to Brown.

I think the call was outside of the 'spirit' of the rule but still technically the rule. I don't think you can "set a pick" like that. At least that was what I thought was the intent of that rule. Either way it is a completely stupid rule and it should be changed. Like signbabybrady mentioned, the defender really should have the right to his place on the field.

Now the question becomes whether or not Nelson could have gotten into position to catch the ball if Brown wasn't there. And the answer is "NO", he couldn't because Barrett had position AND the ball within milliseconds of any contact.

The biggest problem with Pass Interference is that there is no consistency in calling it. As you mentioned, the is a stipulation about the uncatchable ball by the parties involved. It was CLEAR that Nelson wasn't getting to that ball whether or not Brown was there.. Yet, the refs blow it and seem to forget about that part of the rule.

Here I definitely agree. No way was anyone catching that duck. It isn't even visible in the picture because its so off target.

I don't want to imply that a few bad calls aren't normal in any game but in the intellectual interest of picking this one call apart, I would call this a bad call.

The PI rules are so broken, and what does the NFL decide to mess with? Kickoffs. Yeah, because that makes sense.

 

[PatsSox363804]

I want to see a video of it because if I'm remembering correctly the ref didn't even motion to take the flag out until the ball was intercepted which leads me to believe the result of the play affected his call. Maybe I was just really really pissed and I'm making that up but I still would like to see a good angle of it.

 

[Dufflebagz]

It was a heads up play by Nelson to draw a PI, but it was sooooo blatant the call should have gone the other way.....I'd say the ball was uncatchable too.

 

[Dufflebagz]

I want to see a video of it because if I'm remembering correctly the ref didn't even motion to take the flag out until the ball was intercepted which leads me to believe the result of the play affected his call. Maybe I was just really really pissed and I'm making that up but I still would like to see a good angle of it.

You're right, it was an extremely late call.

 

[Pujo]

When does the part about the ball actually being catchable come into the equation?

The refs always take a liberal view of catchable when it comes to both PI and intentional grounding calls. But even if not PI, it would have been illegal contact. Granted, it's a much smaller penalty, but one way or another the rules are going to account for running into a player who's trying to catch the ball. Their WR didn't seem particularly defenseless in this example, but a player trying to catch the ball is considered to be in a defenseless position. That's why there's a difference between looking at the ball and trying to make a play on it versus running into the opponent.

 

[Ring 6]

Is there anything a DB can actually do on a play like that? When a ball is 7-10 yards underthrown, it seems like the only thing the rules let him do is an ole so the receiver can get back to the ball.

A play like that a holding call would be more fair to the DB.

The defender can play the ball

 

[Ring 6]

The problem is that Brown did not cut off the path of the receiver. Nelson is the one who stopped and grabbed on to Brown.

Just not true. Brown ran directly into Nelson.




[/quote]Now the question becomes whether or not Nelson could have gotten into position to catch the ball if Brown wasn't there. And the answer is "NO", he couldn't because Barrett had position AND the ball within milliseconds of any contact. [/quote]
That is the worst interpretation of the catchable rule I have ever seen. Another defender in the path does not waive off pi because of uncatchable.
Your idea of the timing is way off too.

The biggest problem with Pass Interference is that there is no consistency in calling it. As you mentioned, the is a stipulation about the uncatchable ball by the parties involved. It was CLEAR that Nelson wasn't getting to that ball whether or not Brown was there.. Yet, the refs blow it and seem to forget about that part of the rule.

You are correct that pi calls are inconsistent, but Nelson had a good shot to get to the area the ball came down if he wasn't impeded. Thats pi.

 

[BlueThunder]

You are correct that pi calls are inconsistent, but Nelson had a good shot to get to the area the ball came down if he wasn't impeded. Thats pi.

I call BS .... NO WAY Nelson could have gotten to that...Barrett already was there and had it....Look at the tape again....

Just Sayin

 

[nflfan123]

I call BS .... NO WAY Nelson could have gotten to that...Barrett already was there and had it....Look at the tape again....

Just Sayin

Splitting hairs here guys. We have benefited from calls like this all the time.

Gotta move on. Watching the Jets / Raiders game on NFL Network. We have them both the next two weeks. Could be a rough ride if the D does not improve.

 

[Triple-T]

I was watching the game with a Jets fan who was actively cheering against the pats. He thought it was a ********* call too. That ball was uncatchable by Nelson.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I remember that ball being pretty woefully under thrown. I find it hard to justify that anyone could have caught it even without this contact.

It's amazing how often the "uncatchable" part fails to be considered.

 

[Wolfpack]

I don't have a problem with calling PI on an underthrown ball if the receiver is making a cut or a sudden stop to get into position to make the play and gets interfered with.

However in this instance, as others here have mentioned, the pass wasn't even remotely "catchable" for the Buffalo WR.

 

[satz]

PI - Happened when the ball was underthrown and WR stopped to try to get back to the ball. Sergio at this moment ran into the guy.

Its does not matter if sergio then looked back and was raising his hand. the intital point of contact is a PI call.

This is a good call. Once he ran into him then him turning run and WR grabing on to him does not matter.
satz

 

[Triumph]

Splitting hairs here guys. We have benefited from calls like this all the time.

Gotta move on. Watching the Jets / Raiders game on NFL Network. We have them both the next two weeks. Could be a rough ride if the D does not improve.

Welcome and agree totally.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

I only saw the replay once, on TV when it happened, but I sure thought Brown had turned towards the ball first, before the receiver.

Add my voice to the chorus which says, the ball was un-catchable.

I have always disliked the PI call where the ball is clearly underthrown and the receiver comes back to it by running through the DB. I know it has been called both ways, both for and against us, but I never liked the rule and this game was a perfect example why. The penalty...first down on the one...far outweighs the crime, so to speak.

 

[Pujo]

People's whining about rules would be more believable if they ever complained about the Pats getting a lucky call, or an unfair one. As far as I can tell, the whiners justify all pro-Pats calls as correct but will nitpick any anti-Pat call to death.

 

[signbabybrady]

People's whining about rules would be more believable if they ever complained about the Pats getting a lucky call, or an unfair one. As far as I can tell, the whiners justify all pro-Pats calls as correct but will nitpick any anti-Pat call to death.

I dont agree with this assesment. I dont think there is a game that goes by that I dont say a bad call was made (to the people around me at the time) that would benifit our opponent.

Thing is I will take it so it goes no further than a statement "that was a aweful call but I will take it."

Case in point the penalty on Wes Welker being a defenseless receiver I thought was a bad call. IMO Wes caught the ball and was turning up field thus he was no longer defenseless and was instead a ball carrier. But am I really expected to come on here and complain about a call that while wrong went in our favor?

 

[Sciz]

Twitter / Jeff Howe: By the way, it was clear i ...

By the way, it was clear in the film room that Brandon Spikes tipped Fitzpatrick's pass that was intercepted by Barrett. Huge blown PI call.

MADFACE