The Official Patriots vs Ravens Post Game thread

[Ring 6]

Ok, you're not even looking. Come on. That's Triumph level foolishness.

He is right. The defender was in the way of where Edelman wanted to go to get to the ball. Whether that is intentional or not doesn't matter when he is not playing the ball.

 

[moosekill]

Yep, Kon, the ball has to be there to be playing the ball. The ball wasn't there when he turned his head, grabbed the WR and got called. You are reading it wrong.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Are you sure you're looking at the right GIF? The GIF shows the ball in the air, Smith and Edelman in a straight line, Smith's head turning to the right while catching a glimpse of the ball, turning to the left, then making a move in the direction of the trajectory of the ball while Edelman saw the ball as well and modified his route into Smith's patch which caused the incidental contact.

At the point that he moves toward the ball, he's already stumbling after knocking Edelman off course in his own attempt to break on the ball, and simultaneously with this the ball is landing well outside of his ability to catch it. Edelman cut towards the ball, Smith didn't, and as a result they collided and Edelman fell over. If that was Smith attempting to break on the ball, then he must be the most unathletic corner that I've ever seen. If that's not PI, then what is?

 

[Ring 6]

At the point that he moves toward the ball, he's already stumbling after knocking Edelman off course in his own attempt to break on the ball, and simultaneously with this the ball is landing well outside of his ability to catch it. Edelman cut towards the ball, Smith didn't, and as a result they collided and Edelman fell over. If that was Smith attempting to break on the ball, then he must be the most unathletic corner that I've ever seen. If that's not PI, then what is?

Generally those arguing against PI want the receiver knocked to the ground so it is impossible for him to catch the ball, rather than just held up enough to make it impossible.

 

[Kontradiction]

Turning around does not itself constitute playing the ball.

Jimmy Smith was trailing Julian Edelman, and whether he couldn't track it or didn't have fast enough hips, was on a path to nowhere that had anything to do with the ball.

He was not playing the ball.

He does not own the space between him and his personal path to nowhere if it intersects Julian Edelman's right to play the ball, especially given Edelman got behind him. He does not get to reach out and stop Edelman's momentum.

Jimmy Smith made a bad play and he got penalized for it. It happens.

The rule doesn't say "playing". The rule says "competing". Playing for the ball means that the ball is coming down and both receiver and DB are fighting for it. Competing for the ball aptly describes what was happening in this play since both had their heads turned toward the ball. Again, I recommend you re-read the rule and watch the GIF a few more times because that was ticky tack and incidental. This forum has flipped out when the Pats got called for that in the past against the Colts and other teams.

 

[Triumph]

He disrupted Edelperson's route, it was legit.

But Duece says that calls were all BS.

Hes an expert on BS.

 

[Kontradiction]

At the point that he moves toward the ball, he's already stumbling after knocking Edelman off course in his own attempt to break on the ball, and simultaneously with this the ball is landing well outside of his ability to catch it. Edelman cut towards the ball, Smith didn't, and as a result they collided and Edelman fell over. If that was Smith attempting to break on the ball, then he must be the most unathletic corner that I've ever seen. If that's not PI, then what is?

Again, are you sure you're watching the right GIF image? At no point did Smith stumble. Edelman stumbled.

Smith absolutely cut in for the ball and did so before Edelman was stumbling. He cuts inside for the ball at around the three yard line and Edelman is stumbling at the goal line. Edelman simply cut before Smith which is what drew the contact as Smith's head was turned toward the ball. As for whether or not it's PI, according to the letter of the rule it is not. I posted a link right from the NFL on the last page. If Smith had initiated contact, it would be PI all the way... but he didn't. Edelman did.

 

[BradyManny]

This forum has flipped out when the Pats got called for that in the past against the Colts and other teams.

Right, but more often than not, we're complaining about the rule and the way it is enforced every Sunday in the NFL. If a Baltimore fan wants to complain that that shouldn't be pass interference, fine, maybe it shouldn't be. But until the rule is revised or the officials are instructed otherwise, there's a good chance what Jimmy Smith did will get called as DPI.

DBs are rarely bailed out for making bad plays if the result is the WR didn't have a chance to make a play on the ball. Can we agree Smith made a poor play?

I have read the rule, and I have seen the GIF, and I think both support the case that a call could've been made.

 

[Kontradiction]

Right, but more often than not, we're complaining about the rule and the way it is enforced every Sunday in the NFL. If a Baltimore fan wants to complain that that shouldn't be pass interference, fine, maybe it shouldn't be. But until the rule is revised or the officials are instructed otherwise, there's a good chance what Jimmy Smith did will get called as DPI.

The rule sucks, but that's not the point. Even with the general suck of the rule, what happened on that play is not DPI.

DBs are rarely bailed out for making bad plays if the result is the WR didn't have a chance to make a play on the ball. Can we agree Smith made a poor play?

The poorest part of the play was that he misjudged where he should originally turn his head. He did it to the right instead of the left initially, realized he had to turn to the left, did so, Edelman altered his route to get under the ball which drew the contact (again, incidental), and sent him to the ground. It would have been unfortunate for us had the refs not messed up and just waved incomplete, but it wasn't. I'll take it as it put the team in striking distance while the game was still close, but it was still a piss poor call.

I have read the rule, and I have seen the GIF, and I think both support the case that a call could've been made.

No, they don't unless you really want to try everything in your power to make a case in spite of overwhelming evidence that it was a bad call. Like I said, you're smarter than this. I'm really not sure why you're digging your heels in on this one.

 

[BradyManny]

He did it to the right instead of the left initially, realized he had to turn to the left, did so, Edelman altered his route to get under the ball which drew the contact (again, incidental), and sent him to the ground.

You are giving Smith a complete free pass for his instinct to reach out and contact Edelman with both hands. That is not incidental.

 

[juny]

2 ex-officials didn't think it was a bad DPI call. 10 years ago, this isn't called, but with the "new" rules on DPI, it's not a bad call. Is this a case where the game was called tighter than others, sure. But to say this was a gift is going overboard.

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414874115913170944
Just saw the DPI in New England -- bumped him twice before looking for the ball. It's interference.

https://twitter.com/RefereeJimD/status/414873476579983360
Good call for pass interference in Balt...defender contacts receiver not playing the ball...there was material restriction

 

[Ring 6]

The rule doesn't say "playing". The rule says "competing". Playing for the ball means that the ball is coming down and both receiver and DB are fighting for it. Competing for the ball aptly describes what was happening in this play since both had their heads turned toward the ball. Again, I recommend you re-read the rule and watch the GIF a few more times because that was ticky tack and incidental. This forum has flipped out when the Pats got called for that in the past against the Colts and other teams.

Competing for the ball doesn't mean looking up after the receiver reacts to the throw.
Ticky tack is not an argument. He either interfered or didn't. To say he interfered but don't call it because it wasn't hard contact is to not understand the rule.
This forum flipping out is as far from proof of anything as you can get.

 

[Ring 6]

2 ex-officials didn't think it was a bad DPI call. 10 years ago, this isn't called, but with the "new" rules on DPI, it's not a bad call. Is this a case where the game was called tighter than others, sure. But to say this was a gift is going overboard.

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414874115913170944
Just saw the DPI in New England -- bumped him twice before looking for the ball. It's interference.

https://twitter.com/RefereeJimD/status/414873476579983360
Good call for pass interference in Balt...defender contacts receiver not playing the ball...there was material restriction

But wait. People on this forum have told us this was a blatantly obvious, horrendous call that only a Patriot homer could possibly agree with.

Welcome to the bandwagon Mr. Pereira, yuo damn Patriot Homer, chug some Kool aid

 

[Kontradiction]

You are giving Smith a complete free pass for his instinct to reach out and contact Edelman with both hands. That is not incidental.

That was reactionary. The contact that caused him to do that was incidental.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

This interminable debate with long looks and analysis of gifs illustrates that it is very difficult to make the perfect PI call by a ref in real time. I feel I need to shower after defending the refs on PI ambiguity, who by the way in this game were awful. Not because they reversed themselves going against the Pats twice but because on those particular calls they got it wrong the 1st time. On this PI, it could have gone either way and often has. Understandable. I'm thankful we got the call, just to piss off the obnoxious Dirty Bird fans.

 

[Deus Irae]

Does anyone have a gif of the bad PI call that went in favor of Baltimore?

 

[Kontradiction]

Does anyone have a gif of the bad PI call that went in favor of Baltimore?

You mean the one that was almost a carbon copy of the one posted in this thread that people were complaining about in the game day thread?

 

[Sciz]

Sorry to break up all of the PI talk, but let's all take a moment to watch Michael Oher being pathetic.

 

[Wheelman]

lol, is that Arrington shoving Oher back?

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The rule sucks, but that's not the point. Even with the general suck of the rule, what happened on that play is not DPI.



The poorest part of the play was that he misjudged where he should originally turn his head. He did it to the right instead of the left initially, realized he had to turn to the left, did so, Edelman altered his route to get under the ball which drew the contact (again, incidental), and sent him to the ground. It would have been unfortunate for us had the refs not messed up and just waved incomplete, but it wasn't. I'll take it as it put the team in striking distance while the game was still close, but it was still a piss poor call.



No, they don't unless you really want to try everything in your power to make a case in spite of overwhelming evidence that it was a bad call. Like I said, you're smarter than this. I'm really not sure why you're digging your heels in on this one.

Did the defender look back at the ball/play the ball? If not did the defender make any contact with the receiver while the ball as in the air?
One can argue the fairness of the point but one thing is certain (something every Pats fan should know from the 2011,2010 secondary), don't look back/play the ball, open yourself up for minor contact being PI. Every player knows this. Every player knows that if you don't look back you open yourself wide for a PI call. Many a situation like this in 2010-2011 occurred where Pats defenders weren't/wouldn't look back (something causing this board to steam) and getting called for frustrating/seemingly unfair PI because of minor contact.
Calling PI like this may not be fair but it the way it is. Don't turn around = very minor contact is now open to be called PI. Again the Patriots were victims of this many times thru the darker secondary days of a a few years ago.