That was pass interference

[Deus Irae]

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

But you're not making a reasonable argument. You just claimed:

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.

When that's precisely what you're doing, as noted by your comment in this post, where your issue is the location of the line. Your proposing it indirectly, that's all.

 

[Rob0729]

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:

It doesn't need to be helmet to helmet for the defenseless receiver rule. Here is the rule:

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

NFL Communications - Definition of a Defenseless Player «

It is pretty clear the defender hit Edelman before he could protect himself after the ball. This looks pretty clear a hitting a defenseless receiver penalty. Whether it was helmet to helmet or even shoulder to helmet doesn't matter.

 

[Ring 6]

LOL! Sorry, I get my trolls confused.

Bills trolls know they suck so simply attack the Patriots.
Jets fans think they are SB bound whenever they take the lead in any game, so they also rail on about how great they are.

 

[BradyManny]

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.

But, already, the NFL has decided a difference for you. If the ball isn't in the air yet, grabbing his shirt is 5 yards and a first down, and not a spot foul. Whether the ball was in the air or not, slowing that WR down might be the difference between completion and incompletion, touchdown and a wasted down. The rules surrounding DB vs WR play already have nuisances. I don't see why adding another, potentially to the benefit of play, isn't worth at least debating.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

That's a bad call, but it's getting called that way all across the league. It's why Goodell wants. It's what Goodell gets.

 

[BradyManny]

When that's precisely what you're doing, as noted by your comment in this post, where your issue is the location of the line. Your proposing it indirectly, that's all.

Maybe I am, but I don't make the rules, so there's little consequence. My point is, it's not inconceivable that somebody is capable of refining the rule for the better.

 

[Ring 6]

NFL Communications - Definition of a Defenseless Player «

In this case the hit was also unnecessary becuase it was in the end zone and once 2 feet were down it is a TD and the play is over.

 

[Deus Irae]

Maybe I am, but I don't make the rules, so there's little consequence. My point is, it's not inconceivable that somebody is capable of refining the rule for the better.

But your argument is "Smart people, other than me, should make the rule, but they need to make it exactly as I want it, or they'll have to redo it". That's not really an argument for anything but "I WANT IT MY WAY, REGARDLESS OF RIGHT OR WRONG!"

 

[Ring 6]

But, already, the NFL has decided a difference for you. If the ball isn't in the air yet, grabbing his shirt is 5 yards and a first down, and not a spot foul. Whether the ball was in the air or not, slowing that WR down might be the difference between completion and incompletion, touchdown and a wasted down. The rules surrounding DB vs WR play already have nuisances. I don't see why adding another, potentially to the benefit of play, isn't worth at least debating.

They are 2 different penalties, they aren't 'deciding a difference'.
Before the ball is thrown you cannot commit PI because PI is Interfering with a PASS.
You are also not allowed to hold receivers running their routes.
If they are running a route and the pass hasn't been thrown then you have held them.
If the ball is in the air, you are interfering with the pass.

I just don't get what you want.
As it is if you inapproriately prevent the receiver from making a play on the ball you are penalized. It sounds like you think there are 2 different versions of preventing the receiver from getting to the ball. I do not understand that.

 

[BradyManny]

But your argument is "Smart people, other than me, should make the rule, but they need to make it exactly as I want it, or they'll have to redo it". That's not really an argument for anything but "I WANT IT MY WAY, REGARDLESS OF RIGHT OR WRONG!"

I think you're stretching what I'm saying here. I'm pointing out what I perceive as a problem, a problem many people would agree exists, and saying that the status quo of just letting it exist has gone on too long.

People here have made comparisons to the NBA and fear the NFL will go that route if it legislates DPI any further. That is not what happened in the NBA. The status quo of stupid rules and horrible enforcement of those rules happened so much without check that it became accepted. That is what is a danger of happening in today's NFL in regards to DPI.

 

[Ring 6]

I think you're stretching what I'm saying here. I'm pointing out what I perceive as a problem, a problem many people would agree exists, and saying that the status quo of just letting it exist has gone on too long.

People here have made comparisons to the NBA and fear the NFL will go that route if it legislates DPI any further. That is not what happened in the NBA. The status quo of stupid rules and horrible enforcement of those rules happened so much without check that it became accepted. That is what is a danger of happening in today's NFL in regards to DPI.

The problem is all you have to do is read this thread to realize most fans do not understand the rule. Of course many people think its a problem when they misunderstand the rule.
Just in this thread knowledgable fans are not recognizing the difference between playing the ball and playing the man, which is the most critical consideration in calling PI.
Perhaps people who think something is wrong should learn the rule.

 

[BradyManny]

I just don't get what you want.
As it is if you inapproriately prevent the receiver from making a play on the ball you are penalized. It sounds like you think there are 2 different versions of preventing the receiver from getting to the ball. I do not understand that.

There is a variance to the impact the inappropriate contact can have on a play. You've already referenced different ways in which preventing the receiver from getting to the ball can be illegal - whether the contact involved playing the ball. Already a distinction.

You accept that distinction as appropriate, but who is to say another distinction may not be equally appropriate?

So yes, I think there are different versions of preventing the receiver from getting the ball, and the current rule makes life difficult on defensive backs. Just look at the language we're using here. You'd think based on the verbiage that it wasn't a defensive's back's job to actually defend the pass.

 

[Rob0729]

While we are posting animated gifs of questionable calls, anyone have the video of Dont'a Hightower stripping the ball as he hit the receiver where the ball was loose before the whistle, but the refs called forward progress stopped and making it unreviewable?

 

[BradyManny]

Perhaps people who think something is wrong should learn the rule.

AJ, I don't think the officials even know or enforce the rule properly. Ellis Hobbs had an official explain to him he was called for face-guarding after the rule was eliminated.

 

[Ring 6]

There is a variance to the impact the inappropriate contact can have on a play. You've already outlined two different versions in which preventing the receiver from getting to the ball can be illegal or not, and it involved playing the ball. Already, you have conceded there is more complexity to the rule than the black & white you are using here.

There is no complexity in whether the player is making a play on the ball or just preventing an opponent from doing so.

So yes, I think there are different versions of preventing the receiver from getting the ball, and the current rule makes life difficult on defensive backs. Just look at the language we're using here. You'd think based on the verbiage that it wasn't a defensive's back's job to actually defend the pass.

Yuo are lost now.
The DBs job is to defend the PASS, and it is a penalty to do so by impeding the player of his right to get to the ball.
That really isnt complicated.

It seems as if you want to take actions that cause a receiver to not be able to make a play and separate them between he couldn't make a play but he only held him a litlle with hecouldn't make a play and he held him a lot.
I don't know what you think the difference is. The result is the same.

 

[Ring 6]

AJ, I don't think the officials even know or enforce the rule properly. Ellis Hobbs had an official explain to him he was called for face-guarding after the rule was eliminated.

Bad calls get made.
Splitting pass interference into 2 versions that there really is no reasonable point of demarcation only makes it worse.
Should we throw out every rule because I can find an example of it being called wrong?

 

[Deus Irae]

I think you're stretching what I'm saying here. I'm pointing out what I perceive as a problem, a problem many people would agree exists, and saying that the status quo of just letting it exist has gone on too long.

People here have made comparisons to the NBA and fear the NFL will go that route if it legislates DPI any further. That is not what happened in the NBA. The status quo of stupid rules and horrible enforcement of those rules happened so much without check that it became accepted. That is what is a danger of happening in today's NFL in regards to DPI.

No, you're saying that you want some group to draw a line when that's already been done. The rules about allowable contact and timing already exist, and they exist because a group made them. The line was already drawn. You wish to substitute your judgment for theirs, yet you deny this is your wish and frame it as, basically, a do over. Then, if that doesn't fit your particular version of DPI, you'll complain again.

The problem with your position, IMO, is that the rule is not the problem. Inconsistent enforcement is the problem, just as it is with holding, illegal contact, and many other calls.

Unfortunately, we're not technologically advanced enough to have all calls made by machines and robots, so that's an inherent flaw in the system.

 

[Ring 6]

There is a variance to the impact the inappropriate contact can have on a play.

Thats just it, no there isn't. You either impede the player or you don't. If you run a 5 second 40 and you are running for time, and have to make it in 5 seconds and you are running past me. If I give you a shove on the shoulder or tackle you, or run you over with my car, the result is all the same, I prevented you from being able to get to where you were going and caused failure.
Where it gets muddled is throws are not always on target so sometimes there is interference where you still make the catch. Other times there is interference and you come very close to making it and others you miss by a mile. You cannot have a referee judge PI based on his estimate of whether you would have caught the ball unimpeded.

 

[BradyManny]

It seems as if you want to take actions that cause a receiver to not be able to make a play and separate them between he couldn't make a play but he only held him a litlle with hecouldn't make a play and he held him a lot.
I don't know what you think the difference is. The result is the same.

No, I want to take the action of rewarding teams with yardage that was only earned hypothetically - the only time in football it is done - and have it applied only with discretion. It's the only infraction where the outcome of the play, which never happened, is ruled as having happened simply by the occurrence of the penalty.

It's too much power for a rule that is not enforced all that well. Much like calls in the NBA, it's becoming too big an issue in the outcome of games.

 

[BradyManny]

The problem with your position, IMO, is that the rule is not the problem. Inconsistent enforcement is the problem, just as it is with holding, illegal contact, and many other calls.

The bad enforcement in other penalties is not as game-changing, again, due to the severity. I'll end the debate there and just agree to disagree. Like I said, I don't pretend to have an answer for the problem I'm suggesting exists, so I have little else to say.