Pass Interference / Non PI in Dallas - Detroit playoff game

[Ring 6]

Agreed, that's a pretty underrated point. Suh was a primary reason the Cowboys needed this call to go their way.

Suh should have been banned for the entire postseason for being a repeat offender.

Repeat offender rule only applies for 2 years, and he was just outside of 2 years.

 

[strngplyr]

Of course there is. The neck is the neck. The neck area is the neck and the adjacent area, ie collar bone

Is that by NFL definition or a textbook definition referred to by the NFL? These things need to be black and white.

The "neck area" is grey area.

 

[strngplyr]

Repeat offender rule only applies for 2 years, and he was just outside of 2 years.

That I actually did not know, thanks.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree that it wasn't PI, the defender had no choice in his actions, the receiver basically forced himself to be run into.

Thats not my take. If the defender had come back to the underthrown ball it would have been PI. He doesn't have a right to impede while not playing the ball. The reason this one seems like it wasn't is that the receiver never allowed the defender to impede.

I'm not sure I agree that the flag should have been picked up. While the wrong call, I really wonder what the referee farther away from the play saw to convince the official who threw the flag a few yards away from the play watching it happen to pick up his flag.

If you think it wasn't PI why would you want the call to stand?
The other referee had a different angle. Whatever he saw was enough for the ref that threw the flag because he picked it up. I can't say there was no reason for him doing it just because I don't know the reason.

It's also a play thats so close to being PI or not being PI that its almost like a replay review where it shouldn't be overturned without clear evidence disputing call. I just don't see what information the 2nd official could have had to reverse the call.

That is why I don't like making PI reviewable.
Here is another way to look at it.
Do we want the rules to be that 150 plays a game are officiated at full speed but 6 can be changed to reviewed from various multiple angles in slow motion, backward and forward and still subject to judgment?

 

[SacPete1]

Of course there is. The neck is the neck. The neck area is the neck and the adjacent area, ie collar bone

Is that a clinical definition, your definition or an NFL definition? I'm not trying to be a smartass. I just haven't seen the NFL concisely define neck area.

 

[Ring 6]

Is that by NFL definition or a textbook definition referred to by the NFL? These things need to be black and white.

The "neck area" is grey area.

You cannot make everything black and white. I am fine with a referee defining 'neck area' without writing a 40 word description into the rule book.

 

[Ring 6]

Is that a clinical definition, your definition or an NFL definition? I'm not trying to be a smartass. I just haven't seen the NFL concisely define neck area.

They define it as the neck area. The area around the neck IS a definition.
Mine was common sense.
Do you really think referees are wondering what constitutes the neck area? The rule book would be 100,000 pages long if every word in every rule needed to be defined that precisely.

 

[strngplyr]

They define it as the neck area. The area around the neck IS a definition.
Mine was common sense.
Do you really think referees are wondering what constitutes the neck area? The rule book would be 100,000 pages long if every word in every rule needed to be defined that precisely.

I hope they know what the neck area constitutes as by a single definition or that leaves rules open to interpretation.

They lose their value as a standard to play by if they're open to interpretation on what each body part is.

I understand that judgement calls are needed because of the speed of the game however a body part should be defined by definition and the only judgement involved is if the referee correctly saw what he believes he saw.

I see "neck area" and I believe it is the area containing the neck. You see "neck area" and believe it is the area around the neck. Those are two different things. One definition makes hits illegal to the upper shoulders and collarbone as you put it while the other only protects the neck itself.

You're right, not everything can be black and white, but a strikezone needs to be.

 

[IllegalContact]

They define it as the neck area. The area around the neck IS a definition.
Mine was common sense.
Do you really think referees are wondering what constitutes the neck area? The rule book would be 100,000 pages long if every word in every rule needed to be defined that precisely.

I have been reading that the rulebook is too complicated for some of these referee idiots

regarding Suh......as the great Rasheed Wallace said: 'Ball don't lie' ..... whether he was suspended or not, between him and raiola, they got the outcome they deserved

 

[Ring 6]

I hope they know what the neck area constitutes as by a single definition or that leaves rules open to interpretation.

They lose their value as a standard to play by if they're open to interpretation on what each body part is.

I understand that judgement calls are needed because of the speed of the game however a body part should be defined by definition and the only judgement involved is if the referee correctly saw what he believes he saw.

I see "neck area" and I believe it is the area containing the neck. You see "neck area" and believe it is the area around the neck. Those are two different things. One definition makes hits illegal to the upper shoulders and collarbone as you put it while the other only protects the neck itself.

You're right, not everything can be black and white, but a strikezone needs to be.

If neck area was only the neck, it would say neck. "Area" seems blatantly obviously included to explain that the area adjacent to the neck is included. We do not have to agree. I think neck area is fine, you don't have to.

 

[Ring 6]

I have been reading that the rulebook is too complicated for some of these referee idiots

I would disagree that NFL referees are idiots.

 

[IllegalContact]

I would disagree that NFL referees are idiots.

some are.........at least when it comes to interpreting the rules as they are written.

 

[Ring 6]

some are.........at least when it comes to interpreting the rules as they are written.

Examples?

 

[Nunchucks]

Looked to me like the receiver is trying to stop and catch the ball, but is unable because the defender is in his way.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Looked to me like the receiver is trying to stop and catch the ball, but is unable because the defender is in his way.

Hard to turn your head when someone grabs your facemask.

 

[SacPete1]

They define it as the neck area. The area around the neck IS a definition.
Mine was common sense.
Do you really think referees are wondering what constitutes the neck area? The rule book would be 100,000 pages long if every word in every rule needed to be defined that precisely.

I don't think asking for specifics of neck "area" is that unreasonable. Sorry if I lack your common sense.
Have a good day AJ.

 

[Nunchucks]

Hard to turn your head when someone grabs your facemask.

I just watched the video, I am not sure that the hands to the face really affected the play. Sure, they could call illegal hands to the face....just like they could call holding or a number of other things that never get called.

A ref threw a flag for pass interference, the receiver was pushed away from the ball while attempting to stop and move towards the ball. That is pass interference.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think asking for specifics of neck "area" is that unreasonable. Sorry if I lack your common sense.
Have a good day AJ.

I wasn't implying you lack common sense.
Its fine it you want a further detail. Mine opinion is that its clear. We dont' have to agree.

 

[Ring 6]

Looked to me like the receiver is trying to stop and catch the ball, but is unable because the defender is in his way.

If I remember it correctly though, he didn't come back to the ball and make contact. He SHOULD have, but being in the way isn't a penalty without contact.
Thats the gray area here. I could easily argue he may have come back to the ball but was trying to avoid the defender instead. Ultimately my understanding of the rule is there must be contact and the defender must gain an advantage. That didn't happen here, but would have with a better throw or a better play on the ball by the receiver.

 

[neuronet]

Anyone else think this play was similar to the non-call against the Panthers last year?

Except the Panthers debacle was way, way worse.