That was pass interference

[Ivan]

He TOUCHED his arm...touched. I'm not sure on what planet he grabbed it and yanked it back, but not on Earth. It was some good, tight coverage and that's it.

If you watch that arm, it was never affected by the touch.

You clearly have not watched the Bronco's. If you cast a shadow on any of Manning's receivers it is pass interference plus a major and 5 minutes in the penalty box. If you actually touch them sharia law comes into effect and they start by lopping off a hand and get more and more extreme with each 'penalty."

Apparently this came with Manning from Indy, and his agent included it in the negotiations for his 90 million. Manning and the refs for a mere 20 million a year, not bad.

 

[Patsrock]

He TOUCHED his arm...touched. I'm not sure on what planet he grabbed it and yanked it back, but not on Earth. It was some good, tight coverage and that's it.

If you watch that arm, it was never affected by the touch.

Watched plenty of times he pulled it twice once at the 3 and a yard in the end zone.

 

[patfanken]

There's too much hand-wringing going on here. To me, its obvious:

- From a fan standpoint, sure, that's a cheap way to win. It would've been much more exciting if Boyce had caught it, which he should have. But, a W is a W. If I were a Browns fan, I'd probably be pissed.

- From the officiating standpoint, I don't like the call either - it didn't need to be called. But it wasn't some egregious call, as many are making it out to be. The DB definitely got beat, made contact, which slowed Boyce down, and made it harder for Boyce to catch the ball. If that call had been made in the 2nd quarter, nobody would've batted an eye. I think most of us dislike the rule more than the call. Mike Pereira, for instance, is making a big deal about this call because he hates DPI in the NFL, and has made that clear. I think we all think the rule is broken, but the call itself really wasn't that bad.

- Lastly, I think its a moot point. I honestly think we would've won the game either way, so I'm not losing sleep over a break helping that happen. But like I said, I wish Boyce had caught that - would've made for Brady's greatest comeback of all-time.

Well BM there might have been a very good chance that he WOULD have caught the ball, but he was (in your own words) "slowed down" prior to him getting to the end zone You don't think another foot or 2 would have made a difference? That's why there was a PI call and that's why it was the correct one.

No one hates PI more than I do, but it is what it is. This play encompassed EVERYTHING that PI call is made for.

1. The defender was beaten
2. He significantly inhibited the receiver from catching the ball
3. The defender made no attempt to play the ball

AGAIN, I have to ask. Why is this even considered remotely controversial. Sure I would have jumped up and down and gone nuts, if that call had gone against the Pats......at first. But after looking at the clip a few times, I would have had to admit it was a PI and let it go. Its not even marginal and I'm having trouble understanding why any fan, let alone Pats fans, would be saying anything differently

 

[chasa]

He TOUCHED his arm...touched. I'm not sure on what planet he grabbed it and yanked it back, but not on Earth. It was some good, tight coverage and that's it.

If you watch that arm, it was never affected by the touch.

worse PI's have gone against the patriots this season. time to kill this discussion.

 

[Ring 6]

Well he's 100% correct to say that hindering the receiver is a must for pass interference and considering that there is no consensus as to whether the actions of McFadden "significantly hinders" Boyce's chances of a catch, saying he's a 100% incorrect seems , well, 100% incorrect to me.

The rule says the receiver has to be significantly hindered and there is just no way that happened there. Let's face facts. Boyce dropped the ball.

Of course he was significantly hindered. The arm bar at the 8 cost him the half step he needed to make the catch and the grabbing of his arm when he is attempting to make the catch is the definition of hindering.
Are you telling me you think it is legal to grab the receivers arm so he cannot use it to catch the football?

 

[Patsrock]

Cleveland didn't make enough plays to win the game. Pats made more plays.

That is what everyone said after Jets and Panthers losses. So if that applies for those games then it applies to this game

 

[Ring 6]

He TOUCHED his arm...touched. I'm not sure on what planet he grabbed it and yanked it back, but not on Earth. It was some good, tight coverage and that's it.

If you watch that arm, it was never affected by the touch.

You need to watch the replay and leave your bias in another room.
The arm bar at the 8 cost him the half step he needed to make the catch, and grabbing his arm to impede him from using it to make the catch, while NEVER paying attention to where the ball is makes it PI.
Contact when playing the ball is entirely different than contact without attempting to play the ball.

 

[manxman2601]

Of course he was significantly hindered. The arm bar at the 8 cost him the half step he needed to make the catch and the grabbing of his arm when he is attempting to make the catch is the definition of hindering.
Are you telling me you think it is legal to grab the receivers arm so he cannot use it to catch the football?

No. Because I just don't see that. And I'm not the only one so it's clearly not as cut and dried as you and others are suggesting.

As for the arm bar at the 8, Boyce initiated contact and was using his arm to push McFadden away. That's also moot because there was no penalty called for that.

 

[Deus Irae]

He TOUCHED his arm...touched. I'm not sure on what planet he grabbed it and yanked it back, but not on Earth. It was some good, tight coverage and that's it.

If you watch that arm, it was never affected by the touch.

The ridiculous claims made in defense of the call (But 5 yard line!) (But contact in end zone!) are just those people trying to rationalize their acceptance of a tainted win. They know the call was crap. They just want to pretend it wasn't, because feelgood.

It was a terrible call, but the Patriots were still in a pretty good position to win even if it hadn't been made. When you look back at the screw jobs the Patriots took against the Jets and Panthers, it's not surprising that Patriots fans are not unhappy that the call was made.

 

[BelichickFan]

The ridiculous claims made in defense of the call (But 5 yard line!) (But contact in end zone!) are just those people trying to rationalize their acceptance of a tainted win. They know the call was crap. They just want to pretend it wasn't, because feelgood.

It was a terrible call, but the Patriots were still in a pretty good position to win even if it hadn't been made. When you look back at the screw jobs the Patriots took against the Jets and Panthers, it's not surprising that Patriots fans are not unhappy that the call was made.

Within the context of the game I don't feel bad about it at all or consider it a tainted win.

Was there interference at tround the 9 ? Yes. Would I have called it ? No.

However the non call on the Browns' first drive that cost us a FG (against) and probably a Scoop and Score (for) offsets that IMO. We had lousy refs, they made lousy calls. But of the "gamechanging" variety, each team got one.

 

[Ring 6]

Points 1 and 3 describe face guarding, which isn't illegal. Point 2 is iffy at best.

Wrong Point 1 has nothing to do with faceguarding, it has to do with the defenders action being treated differently if playing the ball or the man.
The defender has a right to go after the ball, they do not have a right to make contract playing the man.
Point 2 is not iffy by any means.

 

[Ivan]

The ridiculous claims made in defense of the call (But 5 yard line!) (But contact in end zone!) are just those people trying to rationalize their acceptance of a tainted win. They know the call was crap. They just want to pretend it wasn't, because feelgood.

It was a terrible call, but the Patriots were still in a pretty good position to win even if it hadn't been made. When you look back at the screw jobs the Patriots took against the Jets and Panthers, it's not surprising that Patriots fans are not unhappy that the call was made.

There is nothing "ridiculous" about maintaining the call is consistent with PI calls that have been made around the league all season and in fact for years and years since Bill Pollian lobbied the league to make contact after 5 yards PI. i have seen the Patriots flagged for less many many times and as such have no problem with them benefitting from a call that is entirely consistent with what is enforced against them.

People can argue all they want about whether or not that should be PI, and i would side with those who say it shouldn't, but right now it is and has been for a long time, and until they change it back it will continue to be the call. What is "ridiculous" is trying to claim that officials have not been calling that PI, as they clearly have.

 

[Ring 6]

The ridiculous claims made in defense of the call (But 5 yard line!) (But contact in end zone!) are just those people trying to rationalize their acceptance of a tainted win. They know the call was crap. They just want to pretend it wasn't, because feelgood.

It was a terrible call, but the Patriots were still in a pretty good position to win even if it hadn't been made. When you look back at the screw jobs the Patriots took against the Jets and Panthers, it's not surprising that Patriots fans are not unhappy that the call was made.

All nice,but the fact is, it was pass interference, your misunderstanding of the rules notwithstanding.
If that contact happened while the defender was trying to make a play on the ball, it would have been fine, but he was not. He was impeding the receiver with no clue where the ball was, ie, he established no right to make contact because he had no right to that spot on the field because he wasn't playing the ball. It happens all the time on the intentional underthrow. The fact that the impediment was grabbing his arm twice is no different than if he tackeld him.

 

[Ring 6]

Within the context of the game I don't feel bad about it at all or consider it a tainted win.

Was there interference at tround the 9 ? Yes. Would I have called it ? No.

However the non call on the Browns' first drive that cost us a FG (against) and probably a Scoop and Score (for) offsets that IMO. We had lousy refs, they made lousy calls. But of the "gamechanging" variety, each team got one.

I don't understand this.
You agree there was PI, but you think it should not be called? Can you explain?

 

[manxman2601]

Just want to point out that we've seen two to three angles, plenty of replays and constantly repeating gifs and still can't all agree. The ref got one look at it. This is why all the talk about bad calls and bias irks me. Being a ref is a damn difficult job. Mistakes will be made.

 

[BelichickFan]

I don't understand this.
You agree there was PI, but you think it should not be called? Can you explain?

Disclaimer, I haven't watched the play over and over but I have a picture up in my office that someone tweeted when they are at the 9. Boyce is looking back for the ball, the DB is looking straight to the end zone and Boyce's left shoulder is being pulled back (unless he's a great actor). That's why I think there was pass interference.

However it was quick and if that's all there was I just hate the way every bit of contact is always getting flags these days. It was closer to ticky tack interference than incidental contact but while there was a small amount of interference I am not comfortable throwing a flag on something that brief.

FWIW this is the picture I referred to :

https://twitter.com/SteveB7SFG/status/410044867872423937/photo/1

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Just want to point out that we've seen two to three angles, plenty of replays and constantly repeating gifs and still can't all agree. The ref got one look at it. This is why all the talk about bad calls and bias irks me. Being a ref is a damn difficult job. Mistakes will be made.

The angle at which the official witnessed the play was probably the worst possible for the defender since he had zero ability to see the level of contact.

It was also a very close play so any contact would be at a premium. If the throw wouls have not been dead on...it most likely would not have been called.

 

[BradyManny]

No one hates PI more than I do, but it is what it is. This play encompassed EVERYTHING that PI call is made for.

1. The defender was beaten
2. He significantly inhibited the receiver from catching the ball
3. The defender made no attempt to play the ball

AGAIN, I have to ask. Why is this even considered remotely controversial. Sure I would have jumped up and down and gone nuts, if that call had gone against the Pats......at first. But after looking at the clip a few times, I would have had to admit it was a PI and let it go. Its not even marginal and I'm having trouble understanding why any fan, let alone Pats fans, would be saying anything differently

Fair points, Ken. If Boyce had not been contacted, that ball likely drops right into his arms (still...he should've had it, and needs to make that catch in spite of contact going forward).

I don't think the call should be controversial, I'd say that contact is probably called DPI more often than not, it's just that - and while I don't want to sound cliched - "you hate to see a game decided that way" applies here.

 

[Ivan]

Well, if he hadn't interfered with him then Boyce would most likely have caught it and the discussion would be moot. unfortunately for him he did and as a result the patriots won a game they were going to win anyways. The Browns were incapable of stopping them in the fourth quarter so it is hard to imagine they would have stopped them had the call not been made.

 

[50-yard-line]

Did anyone else notice that McFadden DIDN'T ARGUE THE CALL?

You'd think, if it was as egregiously bad as some people are claiming, that the guy who got nailed on a huge penalty like that might at least try to make his case.