DPI?

[clydesummers]

What say you all? My position: BJ slight favour to strong side, One strong side receiver is running a slant pattern, beats the defender and playing the ball, defender is not playing the ball stumbles trying to keep up with receiver and trips receiver from behind (not legs tangling), ball arrives just in front of receiver as he hits ground. I flag for DPI. Thanks.

[mishatx]

  based on your description.

[bama_stripes]

While it may not have been intentional contact, it was more than inadvertant contact.
 

[BNE-Ref]

I've actually extracted this play for one of our training videos.  This is the play Clyde refers to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzr3O5AtRLI

As Clyde's white hat in this game, we subsequently had a head coach's conference, and the coach was most unimpressed when told that a PI judgement call was non reviewable.  Carried on for a bit too much, drawing a UNS from me.

[InsideTheStripes]

Based on the video, I'd have passed on the DPI.

To be honest, I don't like the second flag either.  There was no reason to go to the sideline and have a discussion about a judgement call.  What exactly did you hope to gain by going over?

[BNE-Ref]

Coach requested a coach's conference, otherwise there would have been no reason whatsoever to go over.  Coach thought he could dispute a judgment call.  The video had stripped out the part which shows the coach calling a timeout and asking for a coach's conference.

[El Macman]

Coach requested a coach's conference, otherwise there would have been no reason whatsoever to go over.  Coach thought he could dispute a judgment call.  The video had stripped out the part which shows the coach calling a timeout and asking for a coach's conference.

For which you also charged him a team time-out (by rule) - yes? Good.

[ECILLJ]

This is a judgement call and DPI and OPI's are always tough calls to make. But based on this video, I do not have a flag for DPI.

[TampaSteve]

Regarding the video: I aint got nothing.
Feet tangled is not DPI.

[110]

The DB is, as best as I can tell, even beginning to look back to the QB. Incidental contact. No flag.

[BNE-Ref]

For which you also charged him a team time-out (by rule) - yes? Good.

Most definitely did.  Admittedly, I did forget to ask him if he wanted a full timeout or not.

Which raises another point.  In my personal experience, it seems to me (although I don't keep stats on it) that 99 times out of 100, the coach will decline the full timeout.  I wonder if this is an Australian thing, or if it is common around the world.

[mishatx]

After seeing the video, I'm picking up my  from earlier in the thread.

[bama_stripes]

After seeing the video, I'm picking up my  from earlier in the thread.

Me too, also.

[NoVaBJ]

I've worked with officials who automatically rule foot entanglement as no foul.  I think that approach is dangerous, and just encourages defenders who get beat to creatively trip the player who beats him.

That said, I'd more likely than not pass on what was shown on the film, at least from the angle shown. 

[sir55]

Did not see PI.  What's up with the L with the long hair and the long sleeves rolled up with the undershirt exposed?

[NoVaBJ]

Did not see PI.  What's up with the L with the long hair and the long sleeves rolled up with the undershirt exposed?

They're Australian.

[James]

I would shock most officials in the United States - long hair (but I keep it in a ponytail and tucked into my shirt collar, you don't really see it) and a full beard.

[Aussie-Zebra]

I have a no call on that - incidental

[Bob M.]

REPLY: BNE-Ref...you might want to convey to your back judge that on plays like that he needs to be backing up and maintaining a cushion so that if that ball is caught he can beat the receiver to the goal line. On the play you've shown, if that ball was caught (without the feet tangle), the BJ would have been stuck in the middle of the field while the receiver crossed the goal line.