Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatFanInBA2. Show PatFanInBA2's posts

    Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

    I was watching the game one more time just to warm up before the cards game and had a question on the DMC play in the 1st Q that most thought should have been a pass interference.

    Isn't it true that if the QB leaves the pocket, then it is ok to make contact / be physical with the receivers? If so, then Locker had left the pocket by then and therefore it was the right call.

    Comments?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

    In response to PatFanInBA2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I was watching the game one more time just to warm up before the cards game and had a question on the DMC play in the 1st Q that most thought should have been a pass interference.

    Isn't it true that if the QB leaves the pocket, then it is ok to make contact / be physical with the receivers? If so, then Locker had left the pocket by then and therefore it was the right call.

    Comments?

     

    not sure. But, in a similar vein - when Wilson and Mayo(?) sandwhiched one of the Titans WR and he coughed up the ball immediately after the "catch" - I thought it should have been called a fumble. Guess the WR didn't "make a move" to be considered a possession

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

    In response to PatFanInBA2's comment:

         I was watching the game one more time just to warm up before the cards game and had a question on the DMC play in the 1st Q that most thought should have been a pass interference. Isn't it true that if the QB leaves the pocket, then it is ok to make contact / be physical with the receivers? If so, then Locker had left the pocket by then and therefore it was the right call.

    Comments?

         It appears that McCourty was guilty of not playing the ball. Here are the rules on PI:  http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference.

         There does appear to be some contradiction between the PI rule, and the rule on illegal contact. Illegal contact occurs only when the QB is still in the pocket, and the ball is still in his hands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_contact#Illegal_contact.

         Nonetheless, illegal contact isn't the call being debated. PI is. After reviewing the play a couple of times, it does appear to have been PI, because McCourty was not even looking at the ball, but at the receiver only...and did interfere with the receivers' ability to make a play on the ball.  According to the PI rules, "Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch" constitutes PI. 

         It was a key non-call, that might have made beating Tennessee a bit more difficult that it was.   

     




     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

    I Think the non call has to do with the ball hitting MCC . Even though he wasn't looking in the direction of QB...  On a bang bang play like that, it almost looks like good defense with the db entitled to his space on the field.

    This pass interference penalty can change games and it seems the replacements are using more restraint in this area.

    We've seen enough "activist refereeing " in recent years where every rule gets over enforced.  the game is better when refs let players play to the extent it is about them and not the zebras.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

    Hmm, interesting. I think good non-call.

    (a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference. (One was not looking, neither was competing)


    (d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.  (he wasn't restricted)

    (e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball. (McCourty ended up gaining position)

    I think, even though he wasn't looking, he WAS making a play on the ball, and not making a play on the body of the receiver. No where does it say a defender must be looking at the ball to make a play on it. It's certainly open to interpretation. To me:

    He cut in front of the receiver, gaining position. He didn't play through the receiver's body. Contact was minimal and did not effect the WR making a play on the ball...McCourty's position took that away. Hence: No PI. Had the receiver come back to the ball, or reached back for it and McCourty went through his shoulder or arms, definite PI...but, as most WRs in the NFL nowadays, he did not extend his arms to make a catch, nor did he attemtpt to come back towards it.

    Good football play to me, plain and simple. That should NEVER be PI, only the past 7-10 years has it been when too much focus has been put on making teams score as many points as possible, as quickly as possible (how else can the owners have their cake and eat it too? They want high scoring games, but also instituted the running clock, removing plays from the game, so they didn't lose add revenue, or have 1:00 games bleed into 4:00).

    I've been conditioned to expect a flag on that play. The regular refs ABSOLUTELY would have flagged it. It was a breath of fresh air to NOT see a flag on that. LET THEM PLAY! Time for the D to be able to do something other than be forced to let the WR catch the ball, then politely ask them to lay down so they can touch them down.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

    And after reading through those rules more thoroughly...Tebucky got ROBBED of the fumble return TD in 2002 against the Rams!


    Note 4: There can be no pass interference at or behind the line of scrimmage, but defensive actions such as tackling a receiver can still result in a 5-yard penalty for defensive holding, if accepted.

    McGinest LET FAULK GO! He never tackled him, and it was all behind the line. Bogus. Thank GOD for replacement refs! Never again will a 99 yard fumble return (IN THE FREAKING SUPER BOWL) be taken away by a bad call!!!!!!!

    Ok, I feel better haha.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

    In response to PatFanInBA2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I was watching the game one more time just to warm up before the cards game and had a question on the DMC play in the 1st Q that most thought should have been a pass interference.

    Isn't it true that if the QB leaves the pocket, then it is ok to make contact / be physical with the receivers? If so, then Locker had left the pocket by then and therefore it was the right call.

    Comments?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It was a missed call. TeasPat is right. He wasn't playing the ball and made contact with the receiver when doing so so it should have been PI. If he had just stood between the receiver and the ball without making contact, then it should not be called.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

    I've mentioned this play in a couple other threads. We got a gift from the refs, plain & simple. We all would have been screaming at our TVs had that not been called on a Patriot receiver in the endzone. Can't wait until 1pm....49 mins to go...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Tennessee Game - DMC - pass interference?

    Gift? Missed call?

    Sheesh, nobody even bothering to try and discount the facts/opinions I presented?

    Wasn't a missed call at all. At most, it's open to debate. I used quotes pulled straight from the NFL's own rulebook. Show me where it says a defender must be looking at the ball to be playing it. Prove to me the contact was anything more than 'incidental', and show me how he kept the WR from making a play on the ball.

    It was a good call. 10 years of overzealous PI calls has seemingly overtaken the rule book itself. Read the rules for yourself, as I did, as TexasPat did.

    It was probably 50/50, and only gets this much attention because PI has been so overcalled, it's just expected now. Stupid Polian and the rules committee.
    This is what happens when you tell a bunch of Refs, many of whom are lawyers, to add "extra emphasis" to those rules. That's what they did, they never changed anything, just wanted the refs to add "extra emphasis". Great, tell that to a bunch of lawyers, and PI is called too much.

     

Share