Faceguarding (1 Viewer)

[bryhamm]

OK, I know that there is no longer a "faceguarding" rule, per se. But I thought that part of defining pass interference is that you have to play the ball. You cannot wave your arms around in front of the defender's face without looking for the ball, or you are playing the man and not the ball ... thus PI.

Am I ?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I thought that PI call on Ellis Hobbs was horrendous, but I didn't scan the game thread to see if anyone agreed.

 

[Lehigh98]

Don't see why you should be called for PI without touching the receiver.

 

[videoguy505]

Don't see why you should be called for PI without touching the receiver.

Or else every time a receiver turned to look at the ball, the guy covering him would stick both hands an inch from the guy's eyes and keep him from seeing it.

 

[Lehigh98]

Don't see why you should be called for PI without touching the receiver.

Or else every time a receiver turned to look at the ball, the guy covering him would stick both hands an inch from the guy's eyes and keep him from seeing it.

In that case the reciever should probably start running away from the defender.

 

[David Yudkin]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

 

[redman]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

 

[bryhamm]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

That was my understanding as well, but I am hearing that when they got rid of the actual faceguarding rule it became part of the pass interference rule (or at least the interpretation of it) so that you must play the ball and not the man. By only putting your hands up in the air (without looking for the ball) you are playing the man.

 

[mad sweeney]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that. Personally, I like it because it makes the DB make a play on the ball instead of just getting a step behind and doing jumping jacks in front of th WR. If Hobbs swivels his head around just a little bit it's a good play. Can't blame the refs for that one.

 

[ICON211]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that. Personally, I like it because it makes the DB make a play on the ball instead of just getting a step behind and doing jumping jacks in front of th WR. If Hobbs swivels his head around just a little bit it's a good play. Can't blame the refs for that one.

I have the NFL package and watch a ton of games and I can not remember one instance where pass interferene was called without contact. I also looked up the rule and every definition of pass interference as defined by the official rule involves contact.

 

[redman]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that. Personally, I like it because it makes the DB make a play on the ball instead of just getting a step behind and doing jumping jacks in front of th WR. If Hobbs swivels his head around just a little bit it's a good play. Can't blame the refs for that one.

I have the NFL package and watch a ton of games and I can not remember one instance where pass interferene was called without contact. I also looked up the rule and every definition of pass interference as defined by the official rule involves contact.

When there's no contact, what's the difference between "playing the ball" and "playing the man" anyway? He got his body in position to be hit by the pass, and he timed his jump based upon the WR's body language. It was actually a pretty remarkable defensive play IMHO. I fail to see how that should be punished.

If he's got his back turned to the pass and simply plows into the WR before the pass gets there, as often happens when a DB gets beat and is desperately trying to make up ground, then that's obviously PI. In this case, however, Hobbs was with the guy step for step, and had enough body control to avoid contact while defending the play. It's a rotten penalty.

 

[David Yudkin]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that. Personally, I like it because it makes the DB make a play on the ball instead of just getting a step behind and doing jumping jacks in front of th WR. If Hobbs swivels his head around just a little bit it's a good play. Can't blame the refs for that one.

Hey, the rule is what the rule is, but if I'm an NFL QB knowing that I might be sacked and can fling the ball AT A DEFENDER and get a pass intereference call because he's not expecting the ball, hurray for me, I guess.Personally, this is another instance where the rules benefit a poor pass, just like underthrowing the ball the receiver many times gets the defender to bump him. In this case, I felt the ball was uncatchable (meaning with the defender in the way --which is where he's SUPPOSED TO BE -- the pass would never have been caught).

 

[bryhamm]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that. Personally, I like it because it makes the DB make a play on the ball instead of just getting a step behind and doing jumping jacks in front of th WR. If Hobbs swivels his head around just a little bit it's a good play. Can't blame the refs for that one.

I have the NFL package and watch a ton of games and I can not remember one instance where pass interferene was called without contact. I also looked up the rule and every definition of pass interference as defined by the official rule involves contact.

Do you have a link to the official rule?

 

[bryhamm]

I wonder if it falls under the interpretted (sp?) definition of impeding?

 

[ICON211]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that. Personally, I like it because it makes the DB make a play on the ball instead of just getting a step behind and doing jumping jacks in front of th WR. If Hobbs swivels his head around just a little bit it's a good play. Can't blame the refs for that one.

I have the NFL package and watch a ton of games and I can not remember one instance where pass interferene was called without contact. I also looked up the rule and every definition of pass interference as defined by the official rule involves contact.

Do you have a link to the official rule?

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/passinterference

 

[bryhamm]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that. Personally, I like it because it makes the DB make a play on the ball instead of just getting a step behind and doing jumping jacks in front of th WR. If Hobbs swivels his head around just a little bit it's a good play. Can't blame the refs for that one.

I have the NFL package and watch a ton of games and I can not remember one instance where pass interferene was called without contact. I also looked up the rule and every definition of pass interference as defined by the official rule involves contact.

Do you have a link to the official rule?

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/passinterference

I am not sure that is "official". It is under the fans section and is for common references.

 

[ICON211]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that. Personally, I like it because it makes the DB make a play on the ball instead of just getting a step behind and doing jumping jacks in front of th WR. If Hobbs swivels his head around just a little bit it's a good play. Can't blame the refs for that one.

I have the NFL package and watch a ton of games and I can not remember one instance where pass interferene was called without contact. I also looked up the rule and every definition of pass interference as defined by the official rule involves contact.

Do you have a link to the official rule?

http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/passinterference

I am not sure that is "official". It is under the fans section and is for common references.

Yeah I see that now. Its the Digest of Rules. I guess I need to keep looking for the entire actual rule on PI.

 

[Duffy]

Too bad they failed to call PI when Caldwell was mugged in the endzone late in the game. To see PI called against Hobbs, and not see one against the Indy CB seemed a little...suspect.

 

[snogger]

I wonder if it falls under the interpretted (sp?) definition of impeding?

Probably a By not looking for the ball and running right at the receiver he impeded the recievers ability to get to the ball. As mentioned above, All Hobbs had to do was glance back, doesn't matter if he even sees the ball or not. If he glances back and then throws up his hands no penalty.

 

[ICON211]

I wonder if it falls under the interpretted (sp?) definition of impeding?

Probably a By not looking for the ball and running right at the receiver he impeded the recievers ability to get to the ball. As mentioned above, All Hobbs had to do was glance back, doesn't matter if he even sees the ball or not. If he glances back and then throws up his hands no penalty.

But if this is the case every time a defender gets hit in the back with the ball there should be a flag. I have never seen this happen if there is no contact with the receiver.

 

[snogger]

I wonder if it falls under the interpretted (sp?) definition of impeding?

Probably a By not looking for the ball and running right at the receiver he impeded the recievers ability to get to the ball.

As mentioned above, All Hobbs had to do was glance back, doesn't matter if he even sees the ball or not. If he glances back and then throws up his hands no penalty.

But if this is the case every time a defender gets hit in the back with the ball there should be a flag. I have never seen this happen if there is no contact with the receiver.

Really?? Culpepper and Cunningham use to use this all the time with Moss and other receivers... They use to talk about this all the time.. If you are covered and the defender isn't looking back either come back for the ball or stop.. If the defender doesn't turn around and look for the ball and the he puts his hands up or jumps in the air preventing you from getting to the ball it's a penalty..

I know I've seen it called many times.. Whether it is Interference, Face guarding, impeding the receiver, you can't do this..

If the ball hits the defender in the back and he isn't jumping in the air then of course that isn't a penalty. Hobbs here was definitely trying to impede the receiver from getting the ball, without knowing where the ball was. In my mind that = penalty.

 

[jonmhend]

Too bad they failed to call PI when Caldwell was mugged in the endzone late in the game. To see PI called against Hobbs, and not see one against the Indy CB seemed a little...suspect.

Even as a Colt fan, I agree with this. I thought it was the only "no-brainer" bad call of the game.

The faceguarding call I thought was a good one at the time because I thought there was a little contact. You guys are making it sound like he was a foot away the entire time. Guess I'll have to go back and look at that again.

Another one that isn't being talked about it the no-call on the Colts 2nd quarter drive on 2nd down. Throw to Clark at the back of the endzone I thought clearly showed Clarks arm being pulled down just before the ball got there.

utshomerglasseson: Also, I find it somewhat humorous that there seems to be a "we got screwed" theme in this thread. Every time a Colts fan brought that up about the last AFCCG, we got reamed with "find a way to win". I think any missed or non-calls in this game were a mere fraction of determining the outcome compared to that game. :takeshomerglassesoff:

 

[ICON211]

I wonder if it falls under the interpretted (sp?) definition of impeding?

Probably a By not looking for the ball and running right at the receiver he impeded the recievers ability to get to the ball.

As mentioned above, All Hobbs had to do was glance back, doesn't matter if he even sees the ball or not. If he glances back and then throws up his hands no penalty.

But if this is the case every time a defender gets hit in the back with the ball there should be a flag. I have never seen this happen if there is no contact with the receiver.

Really?? Culpepper and Cunningham use to use this all the time with Moss and other receivers... They use to talk about this all the time.. If you are covered and the defender isn't looking back either come back for the ball or stop.. If the defender doesn't turn around and look for the ball and the he puts his hands up or jumps in the air preventing you from getting to the ball it's a penalty..

I know I've seen it called many times.. Whether it is Interference, Face guarding, impeding the receiver, you can't do this..

If the ball hits the defender in the back and he isn't jumping in the air then of course that isn't a penalty. Hobbs here was definitely trying to impede the receiver from getting the ball, without knowing where the ball was. In my mind that = penalty.

Yeah I have seen Moss come back for the ball or stop to have the defender run into him, creating contact and drawing the flag. I have not seen one instance where there was a flag with no contact.

 

[Godsbrother]

I thought it was pretty blatant pass interference. You can't impede a receiver's chance at the ball without at least looking like you are making a play on the ball.

If he had turned around it, even a little, it would not have been a penalty.

 

[John Mamula]

I thought that PI call on Ellis Hobbs was horrendous, but I didn't scan the game thread to see if anyone agreed.

getting called for a PI when you don't touch a receiver is the 2nd worst rule in football, slightly below the tuck rule and just above an automatic TD for a defender shoving a WR out of the endzone.

 

[John Mamula]

Too bad they failed to call PI when Caldwell was mugged in the endzone late in the game. To see PI called against Hobbs, and not see one against the Indy CB seemed a little...suspect.

there was a lot of homecooking for manning yesterday.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Too bad they failed to call PI when Caldwell was mugged in the endzone late in the game. To see PI called against Hobbs, and not see one against the Indy CB seemed a little...suspect.

Maybe, but still not as suspect as the transgressions that took place in the AFC title game three years ago. There is such a thing as karma, and it bit the Patriots in the butt yesterday.

 

[kevinray]

I may be wrong but he was pretty much on top of the receiver after the ball hit him. The way I saw it was He jumped up and towards the receiver and was on him as he was coming down. There was some controversy in the room when I was watching the game but in my opinion this is PI, I've seen plays like this called for PI, and it was by no means the worst call of the game.

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

Too bad they failed to call PI when Caldwell was mugged in the endzone late in the game. To see PI called against Hobbs, and not see one against the Indy CB seemed a little...suspect.

That was a very bad no call. I guess the Refs just assumed the ball would have bounced off bugeyes chest anyway, so why flag it.

 

[PMENFAN]

I thought it was pretty blatant pass interference. You can't impede a receiver's chance at the ball without at least looking like you are making a play on the ball. If he had turned around it, even a little, it would not have been a penalty.

If he impeded, would't there have been contact?

 

[Godsbrother]

I thought the officiating yesterday was very good.

 

[Godsbrother]

I thought it was pretty blatant pass interference. You can't impede a receiver's chance at the ball without at least looking like you are making a play on the ball. If he had turned around it, even a little, it would not have been a penalty.

If he impeded, would't there have been contact?

No. Obstruction = impede.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I thought that PI call on Ellis Hobbs was horrendous, but I didn't scan the game thread to see if anyone agreed.

If by "horrendous" you mean Hobbs was horrendously guilty of a penalty that will be called 100% of the time, I agree.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that.

Exactly. They've been calling it like this for as long as I can remember.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here are the 2001 rules.

I will check later to see if the 2006 rules are different.

 

[ICON211]

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that.

Exactly. They've been calling it like this for as long as I can remember.

You must have a very short memory because they started calling pass interference with no contact yesterday.

 

[videoguy505]

Don't see why you should be called for PI without touching the receiver.

Or else every time a receiver turned to look at the ball, the guy covering him would stick both hands an inch from the guy's eyes and keep him from seeing it.

In that case the reciever should probably start running away from the defender.

The defender was running just as fast as the WR. Football would be a very boring sport if every time a WR went to make a grab, the defender started playing peek-a-boo over the WRs facemask. As I understand it, the rule is you have to be playing the ball--if you see the guy's eyes widen and tracking, just turn your head a little and stick your arm up and you're fine. Without the head turn, it's blatant.

As far as the Digest of Rules page, note it reads "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to." Also, subsection (d):

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

... doesn't specifically require there be contact at the same time, if you could imagine a WR holding both arms out in front of him, and a defender laying his arm an inch above and across both arms, that seems to fit (d) without there being contact.

 

[Godsbrother]

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that.

Exactly. They've been calling it like this for as long as I can remember.

You must have a very short memory because they started calling pass interference with no contact yesterday.

I have seen PI called without contact before. It was a good call. A defende cannot impede or restrict a receiver's opportunity to catch the ball unless you are making a play for the ball.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I agree...you can't blame the officials for calling the rules like they are - it is a bad rule. If the receiver had tried to come back to the ball and made contact with the defender then I would have been ok with the call, but he did not make that effort.

As for the botched PI call on Caldwell, my only thinking is that the officials deemed that would have dropped it anyway.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

All Hobbs had to do was turn his around and the play would've been fine. Evn if you and/or Hobbs don't agree with the rule, they've been calling it that way alls eason long and Hobbs should've known that.

Exactly. They've been calling it like this for as long as I can remember.

You must have a very short memory because they started calling pass interference with no contact yesterday.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I've seen "faceguarding" PI called many times before. It's not the sort of call you see every week, but it's definitely something you see a few times over the course of a season. I knew that, both the announcers knew that, the refs knew that, and Ellis Hobbs should have known that.

 

[Liquid Tension]

There were two things that I found odd with the call on Hobbs. One. that he did not touch the receiver and two that he was not really face guarding.

So to me, how is this any different than a QB throwing a pass that hits a defender that isn't looking? I know Hobbs put his arm up, but the pass was underthrown. So once again we reward the QB for throwing a poorly thrown ball by penalizing the defense?

I was under the impression that pas interference involved physically hitting the receiver while faceguarding involved putting your hands in clear view of the reciver's facemask so he couldn't make a play.

Assuming the call on Hobbs was "correct" as defined by the rules, I don't like that rule at all. Hell, the league gives credit for passes defensed, so it's awfully hard to try to encourage a CB to go after the ball on the one hand but to discourage him from doing it on the other.

The thing about Hobbs' penalty that was especially odd for a "faceguarding" call was that it wasn't his hands that were blocking the WR, it was more his head and upper body. Essentially, the call as it was made on Hobbs means that CB's must in all circumstances be looking for the ball or else they are going to be penalized if they are anywhere close to the WR. That's ridiculous.

Live I thought it was interference but on replay I did not. The play on Reche Caldwell in the endzone was PI if you ask me. I also didn't like the "touch" to the head for 15 yards on Manning. I know the rules, but can you imagine if that was on 3rd down and it gave them a 1st down?

 

[Z-Dog]

I don't know who came up with this slogan that no contact = no PI. It's not true and it never was true. I've seen the Hobbs play called that way dozens of times in the past, and while watching the game I didn't even think that this was going to be some controversial play. Hobbs got beat and he basically ignored the ball and did everything he could do to INTERFERE with the WR's ability to catch the ball. Easy call.

There were a couple of ? calls and no-calls, including the mugging of Caldwell that went uncalled, and the offensive pass interference, against Wayne I think, that left me scratching my head. But all I can say to Pats fans is boo-hoo! You want yer home cookin'? Should've done better than 4th seed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here are the 2001 rules.

I will check later to see if the 2006 rules are different.

The 2006 rules are in fact different.Here is Rule 8, Section 2, Article 5:

It is pass interference by either team when any player's movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player or such player's opportunity to catch the ball. Offensive pass-interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. Defensive pass-interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball, and such contact restricts the receiver's opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

[c] Grabbing a receiver's arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver's body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(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.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

[c] Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved parties.

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

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

Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation, in an attempt to catch a pass.

[c] Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.

Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a receiver's hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball.

(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

[c] Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved parties.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It is pass interference by either team when any player's movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player or such player's opportunity to catch the ball.

That's not a very well written rule. One could argue that Hobbs' face-guarding significantly hindered the receiver's opportunity to catch the ball -- but so would stepping in front of him and intercepting it, which is obviously not pass interference.To me, from reading through the examples of what is considered pass interference, it looks like contact is necessary. That's also consistent with my previous understanding that face-guarding is a penalty in college but not the pros. (I've heard it given as an example of the rules differences, along with having to get two feet in bounds in the pros but only one in college.)

 

[bryhamm]

Here are the 2001 rules.

I will check later to see if the 2006 rules are different.

The 2006 rules are in fact different.Here is Rule 8, Section 2, Article 5:

It is pass interference by either team when any player's movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player or such player's opportunity to catch the ball. Offensive pass-interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. Defensive pass-interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball, and such contact restricts the receiver's opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

[c] Grabbing a receiver's arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver's body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(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.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

[c] Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved parties.

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

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

Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation, in an attempt to catch a pass.

[c] Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.

Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a receiver's hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball.

(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

[c] Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved parties.

I think it is covered in the bolded section.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Here are the 2001 rules.

I will check later to see if the 2006 rules are different.

The 2006 rules are in fact different.Here is Rule 8, Section 2, Article 5:

It is pass interference by either team when any player's movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player or such player's opportunity to catch the ball. Offensive pass-interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. Defensive pass-interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball, and such contact restricts the receiver's opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

[c] Grabbing a receiver's arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver's body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(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.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

[c] Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved parties.

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

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

Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation, in an attempt to catch a pass.

[c] Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.

Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a receiver's hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball.

(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

[c] Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved parties.

I think it is covered in the bolded section.

So does that mean knocking the ball down is hindering their ability to catch the ball?

 

[Godsbrother]

It is pass interference by either team when any player's movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player or such player's opportunity to catch the ball.

That's not a very well written rule. One could argue that Hobbs' face-guarding significantly hindered the receiver's opportunity to catch the ball -- but so would stepping in front of him and intercepting it, which is obviously not pass interference.

But then the defender would be playing the ball. That is the key here.

 

[bryhamm]

Here are the 2001 rules.

I will check later to see if the 2006 rules are different.

The 2006 rules are in fact different.Here is Rule 8, Section 2, Article 5:

It is pass interference by either team when any player's movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player or such player's opportunity to catch the ball. Offensive pass-interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. Defensive pass-interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball, and such contact restricts the receiver's opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

[c] Grabbing a receiver's arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver's body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(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.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

[c] Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved parties.

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

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

Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation, in an attempt to catch a pass.

[c] Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.

Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a receiver's hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball.

(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

[c] Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved parties.

I think it is covered in the bolded section.

So does that mean knocking the ball down is hindering their ability to catch the ball?

I hope you are being sarcastic ... that would be "playing the ball"

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Can you call pass interference on a defender if he is turned toward the wide receiver, not looking at the ball, waves his arms, but doesn't touch the wide receiver at all? Say the ball is in the air and hits the defender in the arm because he deflects the pass. Again, he doesn't touch the WR, but isn't looking at the ball either. --Dawn Polomsky, Phoenix, Ariz.

Many years ago, there was a penalty on pass plays for "face guarding." What you describe is face guarding. There is no penalty under current NFL rules for this act, unless there is physical contact. If the ball hits the defender, as you describe, the play would be legal. It is dangerous for a defender to turn his back on the direction that the ball is coming from. If he contacts the intended receiver, it would be pass interference because the defender is not playing the ball. You seldom see what you describe, but it would not be a foul.

-- Jerry Markbreit, NFL referee

3) What is the official rule against "face-guarding" when a defender is trying to break up a pass? Is there a certain amount of space he must be within of the receiver for this penalty to be called?

There is no such thing as face-guarding in the National Football League. It is legal to face-guard a receiver. In order to have pass interference you must have contact. Any act without contact is not considered a foul.

-- NFL.com

You have to have contact to have interference...even though [Flowers] wasn't playing the ball. There's not a foul for face-guarding.

-- Walt Coleman, NFL referee

 

[Sullie]

Too bad they failed to call PI when Caldwell was mugged in the endzone late in the game. To see PI called against Hobbs, and not see one against the Indy CB seemed a little...suspect.

I agree 100%. . .having said that, that was the ONE time all night Caldwell had a valid excuse for not catching a sure TD!