Illegal touching or not?

[frank.malone]

Hello gentlemen, what do you think about this play?
I don't know if this play has been already discussed in the forum, if it was, my apologizes in advance.
http://youtu.be/KDPhg0R0H6U

And. Merry Christmas to all of you.

Frank.

[Kalle]

Judgement call. If you rule that the receiver did not immediately attempt to return, then you have IT. I think the ruling on the field was correct based on the video angles. The rule does not require the return to be directly towards the nearest line, you can return in an angle as the receiver does here.

[TXMike]

 

[NVFOA_Ump]

Close but I agree with the call here.  Don't have a very good view of the "block" on video but the two covering officials have it right in front of them - have to go with their judgment.  Since they apparently ruled that there was an intentional team B block here, against a receiver who was downfield beyond the defender, shouldn't we also have a flag down (9-3-4 Illegal Contact)?

[TXMike]

You can rule he was forced out of bounds without the contact rising to the level of contact that should be flagged.  They can be running side by side and if they are that close to the line a step out by the receiver is ruled forced out

[Diablo]

Does A6 (man in motion) commit pass interference?

[Kalle]

Does A6 (man in motion) commit pass interference?

Yes, he does. It is his responsibility to avoid contact. Good catch.

[TXMike]

I saw that and wondered if perhaps they determined it happened too early in the play to warrant a flag.  And yes, I know what the rule is

[Diablo]

I saw that and wondered if perhaps they determined it happened too early in the play to warrant a flag.  And yes, I know what the rule is

Soooo, would you flag it? 
Why or why not?

[DallasLJ]

In real time, probably not.  As a wing, I would not the contact -- wait and see if a forward pass occurs because there is not foul yet.  By the time the pass is thrown, the contact didn't seem to have anything to do with the play -- so I would pass on the foul.

  Having said that I could see a supervisor coming back to this and saying a flag would have been appropriate.  The player that #6 picked, was the same defender that forced the ball catcher out of bounds.  Was the defender forced into a bad position that compromised his defense on the receiver that caught the TD.  Tough call -- but maybe -- and that is enough to call the OPI.  Hard to see both parts live.

[Kalle]

In real time, probably not.  As a wing, I would not the contact -- wait and see if a forward pass occurs because there is not foul yet.  By the time the pass is thrown, the contact didn't seem to have anything to do with the play -- so I would pass on the foul.

How is this not a classic pick play? The defender is picked off the receiver he is supposed to cover. AIUI there are very few cases where blocking downfield by team A on a pass play should not be flagged, and I don't think this is one of those.

[DallasLJ]

How is this not a classic pick play? The defender is picked off the receiver he is supposed to cover. AIUI there are very few cases where blocking downfield by team A on a pass play should not be flagged, and I don't think this is one of those.

  I agree it ends up being a classic pick play.  But, the block, at the time of the block, is not a foul.  QB gets sacked, or throws a screen pass behind the LOS, no foul.  By the same token, QB throws to the other side of the field, no advantage, so I would pass on throwing the OPI -- even though there is contact.  Watching the film in real time, the pick and the eventual throw are pretty far apart in terms of actual time of the play.  Not saying it wasn't a foul -- just saying that in real time I can understand someone deciding it didn't impact the play and letting it go.  No different that a hold away from the point of attack -- not every foul deserves a flag.

[TXMike]

The action we would call OPI needs to do one of these things:  1 - give an advantage to the receiver who makes the contact.  Or 2 - puts a defendr at a disadvantage    Or 3 - makes any defender reaçt as they would on a run. If none of these happen seems we oughta hold the hankie

[Diablo]

By the same token, QB throws to the other side of the field, no advantage, so I would pass on throwing the OPI.  Watching the film in real time, the pick and the eventual throw are pretty far apart in terms of actual time of the play.  No different that a hold away from the point of attack -- not every foul deserves a flag.

I don't think "no advantage, no flag" applies to situations involving potential OPI.
Take a look at AR 7-3-8 XVI:
On a legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone, A80 and B60 are attempting to catch the pass thrown to A80’s position. A14, who is not attempting to catch the pass, blocks B65 downfield, either before the pass is thrown or while the uncatchable pass is in flight. RULING:  Team A foul, offensive pass interference. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot.

[DallasLJ]

I don't think "no advantage, no flag" applies to situations involving potential OPI.
Take a look at AR 7-3-8 XVI:
On a legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone, A80 and B60 are attempting to catch the pass thrown to A80’s position. A14, who is not attempting to catch the pass, blocks B65 downfield, either before the pass is thrown or while the uncatchable pass is in flight. RULING:  Team A foul, offensive pass interference. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot.

   Context matters.  Can't tell from the AR where the blocks occurred.  If on the same side of field, and happening at the same time, or to clear the area for the pass, absolutely OPI.  If in the AR, A80 is attempting a catch on the left side of the formation and A14 is blocking on the right hand side outside the numbers, it is technically OPI , but I do not think it should be called.  I don't think any supervisor would support an OPI in that case.

[TXMike]

I think that AR is there simply to show that is immaterial whether the pass was thrown yet or not for judging OPI.  I browsed through "Anatomy of A Game" to see if maybe there is something there that can help us on "original intent".

One thing that has been consistent in the rules regarding the passing game is how inconsistent they have been.  The Committee has gone back and forth, tightening the rules to help one side or the other and then loosening them.  But the first real attempt to handle offensive pass interference came in 1923 after SMU had gone crazy on teams the year before with their passing game.  In that year they clamped down on contact by offensive players to prohibit it during the entire down and not just after the pass had been thrown. SMU had some very effective pick plays  in the end zone and the contact was just before the pass was thrown.  The rule change put an end to that "unfair" advantage.

Even though it seems to me forbidding contact before the pass is thrown would also help prevent the O from tricking the D into thinking it would be a run play , not a pass play, there is nothing I saw in the book that mentioned that.   

[Kalle]

The action we would call OPI needs to do one of these things:  1 - give an advantage to the receiver who makes the contact.  Or 2 - puts a defendr at a disadvantage    Or 3 - makes any defender reaçt as they would on a run. If none of these happen seems we oughta hold the hankie

In this case the defender is put at a disadvantage, he is blocked off from covering the receiver (he does happen to end up in a good position, but that should not be a factor). AIUI this is the classical situation where the covering official must make a mental note of the contact happening before the pass is thrown and then throw the flag when (if) a legal forward pass crosses the LOS later.