That was pass interference

[Snake Eyes]

No, not at all. From a Pats fan perspective I'm glad we got the call but I'm not afraid to say or admit it was a bad call.

If I was a Cleveland fan I'd be absolutely livid over it (just as we were about the Panthers non call).

Is that so bad?!?!?

I feel there are many homers here going well out of their way to defend the call. Is it so bad to admit that we got away with one?

This is a very flawed analogy, that was pass interference on Gronk in the Panthers game according to the rules and it was also pass interference against Boyce against the Browns.

 

[Snake Eyes]

By the written rule, yes, it was pass interference, but only in the same way that going 35 mph in a 30 mph zone is considered speeding.

How would you feel if you got a ticket for going 29 when the speed limit is 30?

I'm pretty sure you'd be up in arms and point to the strict wording of the law as your defense but somehow it's cool to ignore the strict wording of the law when it doesn't work out in your favor?

I don't understand how one can be upset at the application of a rules when it's correctly called.

I think you're real issue is that it shouldn't have been pass interference because you think the rules for pass interference should be different. Suppose you disagreed with the Tuck rule and wanted to see it gone, fine, but it's lame to complain about a rule that is correctly applied.

 

[Dingleberry]

Seriously, the angst over this borderline call by some of these so called Pats fans just boggles my mind. It's as if you've bought into the national media brainwashing that the Pats don't deserve any calls to go their way AND in fact must feel GUILTY if we get one in our favor. I don't get it. It's like ESPN-brainwashing or something.

I can only speak for myself, one of the main proponents of "It was not PI" in this thread.

So called Pats fan? I guess I could try to compare my history and credentials as a fan of this team, but really, having such a dik waving contest on a message board is pathetic. Almost as pathetic as questioning the fandom of someone who disagrees with the liberal calling of PI in this league--no matter which team it's call on!

I suppose I could question the so called Patriots fans that celebrate ticky-tack calls as Polian turncoats, if I were to use your tactic. But I won't. I am secure with the size of my Pat the Patriot.

I can't imagine what type of fan is worried about what ESPN or the national media says. Let's turn around your logic. Instead of some of us being brainwashed by the ESPN crowd, maybe you and others are so worried about what they will be saying about the Patriots that you will defend the call obsessively. Just as logical a theory, isn't it?

I think we can all agree on one thing. On the scale of getting bent over by bad calls, the Patriots are still grabbing their ankles this year. I will not be upset by the Patriots being beneficiaries of another bad call. But I WILL call it what it is.

 

[brdmaverick]

How would you feel if you got a ticket for going 29 when the speed limit is 30?

I'm pretty sure you'd be up in arms and point to the strict wording of the law as your defense but somehow it's cool to ignore the strict wording of the law when it doesn't work out in your favor?

I respectfully disagree that the logic still doesn't hold.

Get pulled over for going 29 in a 30, of course ANYONE would be pissed off and would have legal grounds to fight it.

Get pulled over for doing 50 in a 30, shame on me. Ticket deserved.

Get pulled over for doing 35 in a 30. As noted, I'd still be pissed off and think the cop is a j******** b/c he's enforcing the rule in stickler fashion. I, however, would have no ground to stand on because by the exact letter of the law it would be an offense.

You can check the thread history, I've gone on record as saying that by the written rule it WAS pass interference. My problem is that the penalty was not consistent with how it was enforced. Are you telling me you wouldn't be pissed off about getting a ticket for doing 35 in a 30? (same difference)

So if you're argument is that by definition it was PI then you won't get an argument from me. I just would prefer that it not get called that closely. Just like illegal contact after 5 yards. I think the refs do a good job of letting a lot of that stuff go. There is a crapload of contact going on after 5 yards that does not get called EVERY game. I'm glad the refs aren't sticklers and throw flags left and right.

But anyway, to summarize, I agree that it was by definition pass interference, I just wish they wouldn't call it that closely. Apparently some here disagree with how they would like to see it enforced, and that's fine. I still think it's worthy of discussion on a Pats message board. As Dingleberry put it, I don't think that makes me any less of a Pats fan than others.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

.......:ugh:

:deadhorse:

.......:violent:

.......:frusty:

 

[brdmaverick]

.......:ugh:

:deadhorse:

.......:violent:

.......:frusty:

ah yes, I can see why you'd think this is beating a dead horse, but at the same time, isn't this what a fan football forum is supposed to consist of "good spirited discussion on key aspects and plays of the Pats and their games?"

 

[Snake Eyes]

I respectfully disagree that the logic still doesn't hold.

Get pulled over for going 29 in a 30, of course ANYONE would be pissed off and would have legal grounds to fight it.

Get pulled over for doing 50 in a 30, shame on me. Ticket deserved.

Get pulled over for doing 35 in a 30. As noted, I'd still be pissed off and think the cop is a j******** b/c he's enforcing the rule in stickler fashion. I, however, would have no ground to stand on because by the exact letter of the law it would be an offense.

You can check the thread history, I've gone on record as saying that by the written rule it WAS pass interference. My problem is that the penalty was not consistent with how it was enforced. Are you telling me you wouldn't be pissed off about getting a ticket for doing 35 in a 30? (same difference)

So if you're argument is that by definition it was PI then you won't get an argument from me. I just would prefer that it not get called that closely. Just like illegal contact after 5 yards. I think the refs do a good job of letting a lot of that stuff go. There is a crapload of contact going on after 5 yards that does not get called EVERY game. I'm glad the refs aren't sticklers and throw flags left and right.

But anyway, to summarize, I agree that it was by definition pass interference, I just wish they wouldn't call it that closely. Apparently some here disagree with how they would like to see it enforced, and that's fine. I still think it's worthy of discussion on a Pats message board. As Dingleberry put it, I don't think that makes me any less of a Pats fan than others.

I'd be pissed if I got a ticket for doing 50 in a 30, I generally think speed limits are artificially low but that's a different discussion.

If your beef with the consistency of enforcement I agree with you, I think the officiating is generally garbage, I'd largely revamp the entire officiating model if I was in charge, yet again, that's another discussion.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

ah yes, I can see why you'd think this is beating a dead horse, but at the same time, isn't this what a fan football forum is supposed to consist of "good spirited discussion on key aspects and plays of the Pats and their games?"

Don't mind me. This thread stays near the top of the forum, so I instinctively and compulsively keep clicking on it...then realize there's nothing new here, just a continuation of the debate.

The smileys were more aimed towards me. Carry on.

 

[Ring 6]

Here you go....

Pass interference is like speeding. The rule as written is far different than enforcement.

By the written rule, yes, it was pass interference, but only in the same way that going 35 mph in a 30 mph zone is considered speeding.

That is a terrible analogy.

Just as I would expect someone to be in an uproar getting a ticket for going 35 mph in a 30 zone, I expect a defender to be upset about getting flagged for that PI call. If we're flagging THAT play then there are going to be flags on almost every play.

No, you would throw a flag when the defender impedes the receiver from catching the ball while not playing the ball.
I don't get your argument here.
On this play the defender did not play pass defense.
He chased the receiver and smacked him a few times to keep him from running to the ball. That is not pass defense.
If the defender was playing pass defense, and playing the football, I would have no problem with the contact that was made, because it would have been made by a defender trying to play pass defense, not by a defender trying to impede the receiver from being a reciever.
There is no disntinction of how much contact, other than it was contact that affected the receivers ability to get to the pass for no purpose other than to impede the receiver.

A better analogy would be drunk driving. A drunk driver impedes my ability to safely travel the roadway. I would not agree to let them go at .11 and only arrest them if they throw up on the police officers shoes, because otherwise you'd be arresting every drunk driver.

I've heard it before, but not sure who gets the credit but someone once said "a flag could be thrown on every play." If defenders are getting away with that contact all the time, then I think they have a right to get upset when a flag is thrown.

Not if they are not playing pass defense.

Let me put it another way.
If I am a DB, playing pass defense means I am defending an area and/or receiver on a pass. That means I am playing the pass. I am trying to prevent the ball from getting to him, as well as trying to make a play on the ball myself. This is an equal opportunity where both players have a right to the ball, and contact is to be expected. As long as contact is in the process of exerting my right to get to the ball, I am fine.
What McFadden did was not trying to prevent the ball from getting to the receiver, he tried to prevent the receiver from getting to the ball, with no concept of where the ball was or no attempt to defend the pass.
That should be called everytime. That would result in
a) defenders playing pass defense the way it is supposed to be
b) preventing defenders who are beaten from smacking around the guy who beat him

I am not saying quality pass defense shouldn't be allowed, but when a guy is beaten and does what McFadden did, he is not defending a pass he is obstructing a receiver. And whether he disrupts him by the half step needed to prevent him from making a play, or knocks him to the ground the result is the same.

Any contact that prevents the receiver from making the play is all the same in that regard, which is why your analogy fails.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I feel there are many homers here going well out of their way to defend the call. Is it so bad to admit that we got away with one?

Actually your premise is incorrect. The Patriots DID NOT 'get away with one'. Why? Because the Patriots did nothing wrong on that play. It was the Browns defender who did not 'get away' with one. As the referee made the correct call, pass interference, as the defender interfered with the ball at multiple points during the route, including the interference at precise point when the receiver reached up to catch the ball.

What you are advocating here according to your example is, they should have let the Browns defender get away with pass interference because you felt the contact was light enough that the penalty should not have been called.

But are you an athlete on the field competing for the football, and how do you know that, the illegal tug on the elbow and arms was JUST ENOUGH to prevent Boyce from pulling in the catch instead of letting it go off his fingertips. Answer, you don't know. All you have is a general feeling of outrage, that the refs DARED to call a 'ticky tack' foul on that play.

Let me also ask you this, during that play, did you EVER see the defender turn his head and try to make a play on the ball? Answer - no not even once. The defensive back was playing the receiver only the whole way, and when he sensed he was beat he infracted the rule multiple times by clutching and grabbing at the receiver. He had NO IDEA where the ball was, his ONLY INTENT was to impede the receiver's ability to catch the ball without himself turning around to make a play on the ball. Not only by the letter of the rule but by the defender's INTENT he was trying to illegally prevent the receiver from catching the ball all the way.

And that's one of the biggest reasons I DON'T agree that it was a BAD call.

Your speeding ticket example is a bad example because there is no competitive engagement involved. Ok say you stepped on the pedal too hard, so you went 35 mph instead of 30 mph. Technically you deserve the ticket. You just wanted to go fast. But now say you pushed that pedal harder because you intended to obstruct an ambulance behind you from passing, even though it had a legal right to pass, but you didn't want to allow it to get around you. See the difference in INTENT here?

THAT is what the Browns defender did, and that's why I don't feel it was a bad flag, the obviously illegal INTENT plus the illegal action.

Consider the athletic element as well. In the pass interference, we have two athletes competing for the ball at top speed, the contact foul need not be all that HARD in that situation, to have impeded the receiver's ability to catch the football, particularly when it occurred at the exact split second moment he reached up for the ball.

In such a critical moment it is very difficult to judge how 'severe' the prohibited contact needed to be to disrupt the catch. Therefore in such a split moment decision, ALL the ref really has to go on is the letter of the rule, did the penalty occur according to the rulebook. Answer, as you have admitted, is yes, the Cleveland defender fouled the Patriots receiver in a prohibited manner according to the rule.

It is so easy for you to sit back and watch the slow motion replay and say, naah that was ticky tack, a foul shouldn't have occurred. But at full speed, of an athletic contest, where the contact impeded the catch? Who are you to judge that it was absolutely a BAD, GARBAGE call? I don't think you can say that.

I'm not excusing that refereeing crew for the generally BAD job they did that game. But focusing on that call and saying it Tainted the game is ridiculous. So what if, as some say the foul could have been called at the 5 even before they got into the endzone? You think Brady couldn't have scored from the 5 instead of the 1? That's a strawman argument.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind abut the call. Because you've already made up your mind. What I'm saying is that there's no way in REAL TIME, full speed that you can say that's an AWFUL call by the ref that should never ever have happened. I don't think we 'got away' with one. The right call was made, the defender intended to interfere the entire play instead of trying to go up and make a play on the ball himself, and the infraction was caught and penalized.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over that play. That is a call that sometimes is made, and sometimes not, but there's nothing outrageous about it where you can say, there's no foot to stand on here, it was a phantom, made up call.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm not sure you could be anymore off base in the point I was making. As a biased Pats fan I was also thrilled we got the call, what Pats fan wouldn't be. BUT, BUT, BUT if we are being realistic and unbiased that's a bad call.

There are plenty of weeks when I complain about bad calls or non calls that don't go the Patriots way. Am I not allowed to say that the Pats actually got a break on one of those calls? Am I supposed to be a complete homer and pretend that only bad calls happen AGAINST the Pats and never for them?

No, not at all. From a Pats fan perspective I'm glad we got the call but I'm not afraid to say or admit it was a bad call.

If I was a Cleveland fan I'd be absolutely livid over it (just as we were about the Panthers non call).

Is that so bad?!?!?

I feel there are many homers here going well out of their way to defend the call. Is it so bad to admit that we got away with one?

I complain all the time about bad calls - and it doesn't matter if the team on the short end of the stick is the Patriots.

Living now in NC, I wasn't able to get the game and only saw the primary highlight. I said at the time and the next morning at work that the PI was a terrible call - because the ref said that it happened in the end zone.

After watching the isolation video on the receiver, I changed my mind. There was clear PI at the 5 yard line (although it's often not called) which would have prevented the receiver from making the catch in the end zone on a ball that was just barely out of reach. I now agree with the PI call although not the spot of the foul.

Like I said, the clear grab and tug of the jersey near the receiver's shoulder while the ball is in the air is PI, clearly could have impacted (i.e. did impact) the receiver's ability to catch the ball - and is often not called. The problem is not that it was called this time; it's that it's not consistently enforced. (I also don't like the spot foul rule for PI but that's another topic.)

 

[Kontradiction]

Those whose opinions count, namely the refs, say it was.

Their opinion counted in Carolina as well. What you would have to ask yourself now is just how heavily we should weigh their opinions.

 

[Ring 6]

Let me also ask you this, during that play, did you EVER see the defender turn his head and try to make a play on the ball? Answer - no not even once. The defensive back was playing the receiver only the whole way, and when he sensed he was beat he infracted the rule multiple times by clutching and grabbing at the receiver. He had NO IDEA where the ball was, his ONLY INTENT was to impede the receiver's ability to catch the ball without himself turning around to make a play on the ball. Not only by the letter of the rule but by the defender's INTENT he was trying to illegally prevent the receiver from catching the ball all the way.

And that's one of the biggest reasons I DON'T agree that it was a BAD call.

Very good description of the issue.

 

[Jackson 2]

Their opinion counted in Carolina as well. What you would have to ask yourself now is just how heavily we should weigh their opinions.

I disagree with calls all the time. My comment about the refs' opinions being the only ones that really count was made in the spirit of considering the bottom line. Ultimately, it isn't about right or wrong, rather, it's about who has the authority to make the call.

 

[Ring 6]

I disagree with calls all the time. My comment about the refs' opinions being the only ones that really count was made in the spirit of considering the bottom line. Ultimately, it isn't about right or wrong, rather, it's about who has the authority to make the call.

Once the call is made (and not taken back) it is fact.
So ultimately you are right the ref making the call has the only opinion that matters.