That was pass interference

[Rob0729]

LOL, the Patriots get the ball back with two-and-a-half minutes left, and the Browns started playing prevent defense. That's a HUGE part of the reason the Patriots even scored that first touchdown of the miraculous comeback, especially so quickly...the Patriots needed two touchdowns with 2:30 left and starting on their own 18 yardline. The Browns went into prevent mode.

Then the Patriots score a TD (against the prevent D), and a completely horrible unnecessary roughness penalty is called on that TD play. Even the homers can't contest how bad that penalty was...or maybe they will. So the Patriots kick off from the 50-yardline because of a BS call. Lucky them. They get the onside kick. A 10-yard pass is completed, and then the "questionable" pass interference call.

Without the officials, that last Patriots TD happened on an ELEVEN-YARD drive.

Assuming they still got the onside kick the same way, the Patriots should have gotten the ball on around their own 45, not the Cleveland 40-yardline. That's because of the terrible unnecessary roughness call. The Patriots had no timeouts and a minute left at that point. The Browns would NOT be playing prevent defense at that point, like they were on the previous drive.

The Browns actually have a VERY good defense. They only allowed one TD throughout the entire game against Tom freakin' Brady when they weren't playing prevent defense. Now you want to claim that it's a forgone conclusion that they score another TD anyway without these penalties? I don't buy it. I don't rule out the possibility, but to say that it was inevitable is ridiculous.

And the comedy post of the day goes to the Jets troll....

 

[BradyManny]

All defensive pass interferences are defenders trying to prevent an offensive player from making a catch after the ball has been thrown, and doing so in a manner that is not allowed under the current rules.

I'm saying change the rules.

Does Devin McCourty not turning around and barely making contact with a receiver == Luke Kuechly tackling Rob Gronkowski?

The rules of the NFL are tremendously complicated so as to accommodate minor disparities in infractions, DPI is the exception to the rule.

It's just that we're used to that exception.

It is also the only penalty where the outcome of the hypothetical play is imagined and then enforced. That kind of severe penalty shouldn't be handed out as lightly as it is. Or, on the other hand, be so severe that it deters the calling of true penalties for fear of the severity of the punishment (Gronk/Kuechly) in the first place.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not saying the different point in the game be the deciding factor. Let the amount of contact dictate the penalty. Reserve spot fouls for truly egregious contact. And the BS ticky-tack "not turning around" calls that go against the Pats, well, if the NFL really want to call those, make it akin to defensive holding.

The problem is all pass interferences, regardless of the disparities in the severity, force, disruptive effect and duration of the contact are lumped together as one infraction with one hugely severe penalty, when that is most certainly not the case.

There is no such thing as a 'not turning around penalty'.
A defender has the same rights to the ball and to the spot on the field as the offensive player. The defender has no right to obstruct the receiver from the ball or a spot on the field, unless he moves there in an attempt to exercise his right to the ball. (And exactly the same thing goes for the offensive player)
So, when the ball is in the air, and both players are attempting to catch it contact fighting for position is a necessary evil.
If one player is going for the ball, and the other player is simply trying to impede him from making the catch,then the amount of acceptable contact is substantially less. In fact none is actually allowed in that case, but just as every holding call doesn't get called, incidental contact, which technical is a foul gets overlooked.

 

[Ring 6]

And the comedy post of the day goes to the Jets troll....

Oh please, You are just so wrong




He is a Bills troll.

 

[Uncle Meat]

And the comedy post of the day goes to the Jets troll....

Which part do you disagree with? I'm curious to know, because everything I said was true.

The Browns playing prevent defense, the BS unnecessary roughness call (which was huge), etc...these things happened.

But the counter-argument is basically that Brady is super-human or something, I guess. Or just attack me instead of what I said and continue to believe in whatever else....that's pretty easy, I suppose.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm saying change the rules.

Does Devin McCourty not turning around and barely making contact with a receiver == Luke Kuechly tackling Rob Gronkowski?

Yes. They are both attempts to stop the receiver from making a fair (deemed by the rules) play on the ball once it's in the air. What you're arguing for is a penalty based upon degree, not kind. In effect, you're looking for the penalty/personal foul distinction that they tried with facemask calls.

The rules of the NFL are complicated so as to accommodate minor disparities in infractions, DPI is the exception to the rule.

It's just that we're used to that exception.

It is also the only penalty where the outcome of the hypothetical play is imagined and then enforced. That kind of severe penalty shouldn't be handed out as lightly as it is. Or, on the other hand, be so severe that it deters the calling of true penalties for fear of the severity of the punishment (Gronk/Kuechly) in the first place.

People have been crying about DPI for, well, forever. The NFL gets it right, compared to the horrible application used in college, yet they still complain. As for being handed out lightly, you've got an interesting notion of "lightly". "Inconsistently", I could have agreed with, but "lightly"? No.

 

[BradyManny]

There is no such thing as a 'not turning around penalty'.

In the rule book, no, but in practice, absolutely it is called. Ask Ellis Hobbs, Devin McCourty, Kyle Arrington, etc., etc. AJ, of all fanbases, Patriots fans know that in practice, not turning around is a huge factor in whether DPI is called.

 

[Rob0729]

Which part do you disagree with? I'm curious to know, because everything I said was true.

Where do I begin? I will start with the Pats got most of their points with the Browns playing prevent. It is funny that Vereen would get a 50 plus yard reception with the Browns all playing prevent. Prevent allows teams to march down the field with short passes.

 

[BradyManny]

In effect, you're looking for the penalty/personal foul distinction that they tried with facemask calls.

Yes, and what would be so bad with that?

People have been crying about DPI for, well, forever. The NFL gets it right, compared to the horrible application used in college, yet they still complain. As for being handed out lightly, you've got an interesting notion of "lightly". "Inconsistently", I could have agreed with, but "lightly"? No.

Fair, "lightly" isn't the right word. And "inconsistently," as you say, is. That inconsistency is as much to do with the severity of the penalty as anything.

And people have been crying about DPI forever since it's not right in the NFL. Better than college that has no spot foul? Maybe. I don't watch much college anymore so I don't know how bad an issue it is. But it's not right in the NFL either, and there isn't a clear fix, so it just gets swept under the rug every year. For once, I agree with Mike Pereira, the rule needs to be revisited.

 

[Ring 6]

In the rule book, no, but in practice, absolutely it is called. Ask Ellis Hobbs, Devin McCourty, Kyle Arrington, etc., etc. AJ, of all fanbases, Patriots fans know that in practice, not turning around is a huge factor in whether DPI is called.

No. There is not a penalty for not turning around. There is a penalty for impeding the receiver when you are not trying to make a play on the ball.
Defenders cannot make contact when 'playing the man' that is contact is not allowed in order to disrupt someone from going where they need to go to get the ball. Contact as a result of going for the ball is something entirely different
When a DB doesn't turn around he is defending the man, not the ball.

 

[Rob0729]

The Browns playing prevent defense, the BS unnecessary roughness call (which was huge), etc...these things happened.

The Browns didn't play prevent. Especially not on the second to last TD drive because they knew the Pats could score quickly and potentially get the ball back in enough time to score another TD.

There was definitely at least a holding call on the last play. Should have been flagged on the 8n yard line. Definitely, indisputably a penalty there. The penalty in the end zone was ticky tack. I agree the penalty in the end zone probably shouldn't have been called, but there absolutely should have been a penalty called on that play. McFadden grabbed Boyce by the collar and pulled on it.

 

[Rob0729]

Oh please, You are just so wrong




He is a Bills troll.

LOL! Sorry, I get my trolls confused.

 

[Uncle Meat]

So if there wasnt helmet to helmet contact on a defenseless receiver and pass interfence to prevent a TD, then what???????????

The pass interference should not have been called, but that was beaten to death here.

But you are calling THIS helmet-to-helmet? Look again, because that's shoulder-to-shoulder and a textbook approach to that situation by the defender:



Just hit the poor guy very hard.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, and what would be so bad with that?

Because you'll just be moving the point of *****ing. The cries would then be "That should have been the lesser/greater penalty!"

Fair, "lightly" isn't the right word. And "inconsistently," as you say, is. That inconsistency is as much to do with the severity of the penalty as anything.

And people have been crying about DPI forever since it's not right in the NFL. Better than college that has no spot foul? Maybe. I don't watch much college anymore so I don't know how bad an issue it is. But it's not right in the NFL either, and there isn't a clear fix, so it just gets swept under the rug. For once, I agree with Mike Pereira, the rule needs to be revisited.

Spot foul, or modified spot foul (minimum yardage, no maximum) is the only thing that makes sense. Without it, defenders past the penalty line (say 15 yards) will be better served to just beat the hell out of the receivers when the ball is in the air. It'd be almost a no lose situation. Even if the call is made, you lose fewer yards than where the ball was going to be.

 

[BradyManny]

No. There is not a penalty for not turning around. There is a penalty for impeding the receiver when you are not trying to make a play on the ball.
Defenders cannot make contact when 'playing the man' that is contact is not allowed in order to disrupt someone from going where they need to go to get the ball. Contact as a result of going for the ball is something entirely different
When a DB doesn't turn around he is defending the man, not the ball.

Fair enough. I don't think it's called appropriately and think the Patriots have been burned plenty in the past, but I won't argue the rule with you.

 

[Ring 6]

The pass interference should not have been called, but that was beaten to death here.

Which has proven it was the correct call.

But you are calling THIS helmet-to-helmet? Look again, because that's shoulder-to-shoulder and a textbook approach to that situation by the defender:

Poor angle, but yes first contact was head to head

 

[BradyManny]

Spot foul, or modified spot foul (minimum yardage, no maximum) is the only thing that makes sense. Without it, defenders past the penalty line (say 15 yards) will be better served to just beat the hell out of the receivers when the ball is in the air. It'd be almost a no lose situation. Even if the call is made, you lose fewer yards than where the ball was going to be.

But I'm not advocating lose the spot foul. Beating the hell out of a receiver would still be a spot foul. I'm not proposing where the line be drawn, just suggesting it's sensible that a group of reasonable people with football intelligence (I'll let others decide if that's the competition committee) would be capable of drawing the line. And then the officials would be no worse off trying to enforce those rules than they are the current DPI rules.

 

[Deus Irae]

But I'm not advocating lose the spot foul. Beating the hell out of a receiver would still be a spot foul. I'm not proposing where the line be drawn, just suggesting it's sensible that a group of reasonable people with football intelligence (I'll let others decide if that's the competition committee) would be capable of drawing the line. And then the officials would be no worse off trying to enforce those rules than they are the current DPI rules.

But the line's already been drawn, and you're complaining about it.

 

[Ring 6]

Fair enough. I don't think it's called appropriately and think the Patriots have been burned plenty in the past, but I won't argue the rule with you.

Well its the spirit of the rule too. If you prevent the player from being able to make a play on the ball its a foul.
Grabbing his shirt cost him the half step that makes it incomplete is no different than tackling him.

 

[BradyManny]

But the line's already been drawn, and you're complaining about it.

Because said line has been drawn poorly, and there's no reason not to re-visit it.