Faceguarding (1 Viewer)

[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.

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

There is no "unless he is playing the ball" in the sentence quoted from the rules.

 

[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.

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

Whether it is or not, it shouldn't be. If the rule states that if a defender makes contact with the ball, but not the receiver, while never looking back at the ball, then that constitutes pass interference, then the rule sucks just like the Tuck Rule. What I saw was a defender trying to keep up with a receiver, anticipating where the ball was headed, and knocking it down. He wasn't preventing the receiver from seeing the ball by holding his hands in front of the receiver's eyes, he was reacting and making a play.There's too much pass interference in football. By the written rule Maurile posted, there is nothing in there to indicate that what Hobbs did should be constituted as pass interference. For God's sake, with all the groaning people did over Darrell Jackson's OPI call in the Super Bowl last year, which was correctly called by the letter of the law as written, I'm amazed there wasn't more discussion of this rule (or interpretation thereof.) Especially considering that the Colts were guilty of MUCH more blatant interference on Caldwell later in the game on a play in the end zone. And I was rooting for the Colts, by the way.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

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

:X There it is, right there.

 

[David Yudkin]

I still am curious if as written it would be pass interference if a WR broke off the line and headed upfield with a defender follow himing and the QB nailed the defender in the back of the helmet as he and the WR started running upfield.

The defender would have made no attempt to play the ball, made no effort to look for the ball, and caused the WR to not be able to catch the ball.

 

[redman]

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.)

The word "progress" implies to me forward movement, or at least movement towards the ball, rather than ability to see the ball which is really what faceguarding is. Frankly, I see no part of that rule that touches upon faceguarding.

 

[redman]

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

There it is, right there.

Nice summary. There's no faceguarding penalty anymore.

 

[flufhed]

I thought I was going crazy last night, because I distinctly recalled that there is no such thing as "face-guarding" in the NFL. That's a college penalty.

 

[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.

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.

I have the same and have seen it called that way several times. I can't give you an example but I saw it plenty. Even in the playoffs.

 

[Godsbrother]

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.

I have the same and have seen it called that way several times. I can't give you an example but I saw it plenty. Even in the playoffs.

I have seen it called in the NFL as well. If it was an incorrect call then I don't understand why Belichick didn't try to get a clarification on the call.

 

[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.

I have the same and have seen it called that way several times. I can't give you an example but I saw it plenty. Even in the playoffs.

Then it was called incorrectly. There has to be contact.

 

[snogger]

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.

I have the same and have seen it called that way several times. I can't give you an example but I saw it plenty. Even in the playoffs.

Then it was called incorrectly. There has to be contact.

maybe there was .. Did the receiver, while reaching for the ball come in contact with the defender as he jumped up?I can't recall.. It wasn't like he was 1 or 2 yards away.. he was right in the receivers face when he jumped up.. If the receiver was trying to make a play for the ball, the defender didn't turn around and impeded the receivers ability to make a play for the ball(even if it was the receiver that initiated the contact) than wouldn't that be Pass interference??

 

[Slingblade]

If the defender is playing the player and not looking for the ball, they are going to call PI everytime.

Been like that for as long as I can remember.

 

[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.

I have the same and have seen it called that way several times. I can't give you an example but I saw it plenty. Even in the playoffs.

Then it was called incorrectly. There has to be contact.

maybe there was .. Did the receiver, while reaching for the ball come in contact with the defender as he jumped up?I can't recall.. It wasn't like he was 1 or 2 yards away.. he was right in the receivers face when he jumped up.. If the receiver was trying to make a play for the ball, the defender didn't turn around and impeded the receivers ability to make a play for the ball(even if it was the receiver that initiated the contact) than wouldn't that be Pass interference??

To me it didn't look like there was any physical contact between the DB and the receiver. If the refs thought there was and just made a bad call then that is a different story than what people are saying they called. Even Phil Simms at the time said they were calling interference because it was faceguarding, which was changed to a legal form of defense years ago.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

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.

I agre with this. I remember seeing some contact, which basically prevented Wayne (was it?) to be able to come back to get the ball. Some of you are talking like he wasn't touched at all. I'd have to see it again, because that's not the way I remembered it.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Phil Simms at the time said they were calling interference because it was faceguarding, which was changed to a legal form of defense years ago.

Yeah, but you have to remember that today's announcers suck like there's no tomorrow. If any of these crews did prime time games, and we saw them every week, a lot of people would stop complaining about the MNF, and SNF crews.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Phil Simms at the time said they were calling interference because it was faceguarding, which was changed to a legal form of defense years ago.

Yeah, but you have to remember that today's announcers suck like there's no tomorrow. If any of these crews did prime time games, and we saw them every week, a lot of people would stop complaining about the MNF, and SNF crews.

What's funny is that since Simms defended the call, there seems to be no outrage despite it being blatantly incorrect.However, when Madden called DJax's pushoff ticky-tack last year in the Super Bowl, the whole nation went into a frenzy over the officiating, even though it was absolutely the correct call, by the letter of the rules detailed above.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I think most of you who THINK you have seen this called in the past are referring to something else. It seems that an unwritten rule has developed among officials that in a close play as long as you look back for the ball, they will allow you incidental contact. Dont look back for the ball and make any contact, instant PI. The problem is in this case, the DB never touched the WR. Now it was easy to see from replay that the DB never touched the WR. The ref making the call had a terrible angle to know whether there was contact or not. If he called faceguarding, bad call and he should know better. If he thought the DB made contact and didnt look back, wrong call and tough break for the Pats but it was a judgement call. I can live with a judgement call much easier than a misinterpretation of the rules.

 

[David Yudkin]

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.

I agre with this. I remember seeing some contact, which basically prevented Wayne (was it?) to be able to come back to get the ball. Some of you are talking like he wasn't touched at all. I'd have to see it again, because that's not the way I remembered it.

I'll look at it the play tonight since I recorded the game. But as I recall, the receiver turned back toward the line of scrimmage but the ball hit Hobbs in the arm (who was a yard or two away). The WR fell out of bounds at an angle and Hobbs continued to fall straight ahead through the end zone.IMO, the ball was both short and uncatchable and the WR was going to be out of bounds had the ball even gotten that far. I do not remember there being any contact as the receiver fell out of bounds along the sideline while Hobbs fell through the back of the end zone.

 

[switz]

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 ?

I was under the impressions the DB had to play the ball, and if he did anything to inhibit the WRs ability to make the catch, while not playing the ball, it is PI. I've seen other plays where PI was called where the DB never touched the receiver, but wasn't playing the ball.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.)

Good job on getting the rules and you are correct, that is not worded well. Unless progress means movement?

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

Whether it is or not, it shouldn't be. If the rule states that if a defender makes contact with the ball, but not the receiver, while never looking back at the ball, then that constitutes pass interference, then the rule sucks just like the Tuck Rule. What I saw was a defender trying to keep up with a receiver, anticipating where the ball was headed, and knocking it down. He wasn't preventing the receiver from seeing the ball by holding his hands in front of the receiver's eyes, he was reacting and making a play.There's too much pass interference in football. By the written rule Maurile posted, there is nothing in there to indicate that what Hobbs did should be constituted as pass interference. For God's sake, with all the groaning people did over Darrell Jackson's OPI call in the Super Bowl last year, which was correctly called by the letter of the law as written, I'm amazed there wasn't more discussion of this rule (or interpretation thereof.) Especially considering that the Colts were guilty of MUCH more blatant interference on Caldwell later in the game on a play in the end zone. And I was rooting for the Colts, by the way.

I agree PI is called too much; 35 yard penalties are not good for the game. I also thought NE came up short on those calls.

 

[switz]

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.

There is no "unless he is playing the ball" in the sentence quoted from the rules.

Actually...

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.

It is rather obvious, in most cases that whether the DB is playing the ball or not IS significant.Also, D does not require contact, and could be _technically_ used to throw a flag against "faceguarding"...

 

[Tau837]

I have two problems with the notion that the official called PI because it was faceguarding.

First off, Maurile's post makes it fairly clear that there is no rule against it. Refs blow calls often enough, but I can't think of any instance when a ref made a call based on a non-existent rule.

Secondly, I'm not sure, but is PI reviewable? I assume not. But I would think Belichik would have blown a gasket if he was under the impression that it was a faceguarding call, since presumably he would also know there is no such rule.

Instead, I think it is more likely that the official thought there was contact, as someone noted above. Whether there was or not, and thus whether the call was right or wrong, would then have nothing to do with faceguarding, even though Simms may have called it that, can't remember.

Frankly, I though Dallas Clark was interfered with in the end zone earlier, and it wasn't called... sometimes it should be called and isn't, and sometimes it shouldn't be called and is. The refs are human and those are the breaks.

As for the non-call on Caldwell, watching it live, I didn't think it was as blatant as some have said here. I thought there was a level of contact that can go either way... wouldn't have been surprised to see it called or not.

 

[David Yudkin]

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.

There is no "unless he is playing the ball" in the sentence quoted from the rules.

Actually...

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.

It is rather obvious, in most cases that whether the DB is playing the ball or not IS significant.Also, D does not require contact, and could be _technically_ used to throw a flag against "faceguarding"...

Every item you highlight still involved CONTACT with the receiver.

 

[switz]

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.

There is no "unless he is playing the ball" in the sentence quoted from the rules.

Actually...

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.

It is rather obvious, in most cases that whether the DB is playing the ball or not IS significant.Also, D does not require contact, and could be _technically_ used to throw a flag against "faceguarding"...

Every item you highlight still involved CONTACT with the receiver.

"Extending an arm across the body" does not explicitly require contact.

 

[drdgreenlove]

Here is the offical word on face guarding with a nearly exact scenario from Jerry Markbreit

former NFL official 1 month ago

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...heref-headlines

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."

 

[David Yudkin]

As for the non-call on Caldwell, watching it live, I didn't think it was as blatant as some have said here. I thought there was a level of contact that can go either way... wouldn't have been surprised to see it called or not.

IIRC, the defender grabbed Caldwell's jersey and started dragging him down long before the ball got there, but by the time the ball arrived it looked like Caldwell had started falling down all on his own.

 

[David Yudkin]

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.

There is no "unless he is playing the ball" in the sentence quoted from the rules.

Actually...

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.

It is rather obvious, in most cases that whether the DB is playing the ball or not IS significant.Also, D does not require contact, and could be _technically_ used to throw a flag against "faceguarding"...

Every item you highlight still involved CONTACT with the receiver.

"Extending an arm across the body" does not explicitly require contact.

To each his own, I guess. IMO, it says "body" so it means "body." I read it as extending an arm ON a receiver's body. If not, *ANY* time a defender gets a part of his anatomy in front of a pass it would have to be called pass interference, as to the letter of the rule a player would be getting in front of a receiver's body.

 

[switz]

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.

There is no "unless he is playing the ball" in the sentence quoted from the rules.

Actually...

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.

It is rather obvious, in most cases that whether the DB is playing the ball or not IS significant.Also, D does not require contact, and could be _technically_ used to throw a flag against "faceguarding"...

Every item you highlight still involved CONTACT with the receiver.

"Extending an arm across the body" does not explicitly require contact.

To each his own, I guess. IMO, it says "body" so it means "body." I read it as extending an arm ON a receiver's body. If not, *ANY* time a defender gets a part of his anatomy in front of a pass it would have to be called pass interference, as to the letter of the rule a player would be getting in front of a receiver's body.

FWIW, I agree some form of contact should be necessary for PI to be called. I am just highlighting the way the current rule is written, a ref _could_ call it "according to the rule" without their being contact.

 

[dparker713]

D in the rules clearly does not require contact with the receiver with the terms extending and across. Given its a list of offenses that is incomplete, its logically consistent to expect other instances of interference that do not require contact.

Markbreit is retired and may not be privy to the current emphasis and interpretation of a very vague rule. While NLF.com is an official site, I've no idea if what they write on the rules is approved or how exactly things get posted. As for the other ref, the quote is from several years ago. Also, its from a site that devoted to how the Raiders got hosed by the tuck rule and that he is the worst ref in all of sports.

On the whole, I remember thinking it was pretty blatant and no one on the Pats looked like they were upset at the call.

 

[videoguy505]

Also remember that the above are examples that "include but are not limited to", meaning that the Digest of Rules isn't as technically accurate as the offical rulebook.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also remember that the above are examples that "include but are not limited to", meaning that the Digest of Rules isn't as technically accurate as the offical rulebook.

The official rulebook uses the same phrase. (See the post above where I quote the whole rule.)

 

[David Yudkin]

I had a chance to review both the Wayne/Hobbs play and the Caldwell play.

Wayne heads toward the back pylon and expects the ball over his shoulder but sees the ball coming short and along the sideline. Wayne seems to slow down to turn back toward the ball and has to alter his route as the ball is coming in at a different angle than he expected.

Hobbs is closer than I remembered and raises his left arm at the last second and the ball hits the back of his arm and the ball bounds away. At that point Wayne had actually turned himself all the way around and was now facing the goalline and getting in position to try to adjust to the pass which will end up being low and outside (on the sideline side of the endzone).

After watching the replay in slow motion about 10 times from 5 angles, Wayne and Hobbs end up very close to each other but it does not appear that Hobbs hits Wayne. If he does, Hobbs' hand grazes Wayne's hand after the ball is already knocked down. Wayne continues backwards out of the sideline near the back of the end zone. Hobbs keeps going straight through the back of the end zone.

Whether the ball was catchable or not may or may not be part of the rule, but IMO Wayne have had a tough time getting a hand or even a couple fingers on the ball while turning and his momentum carrying him away from the pass and out of the endzone. Where Hobbs was and was running, the ball could have hit him even if he did not try to get in the way.

Hobbs definitely gets in Wayne's way in his effort to catch the ball, but there really is no contact as far as I can tell. So the real issue is whether pass interference is enforcable on a play when there is no contact. Wayne does seem a little frazzled about the whole play and may have altered his path to the ball, but again he does not come into contact with Hobbs.

As for the Caldwell play, Caldwell definitely got mugged. Brady releases the ball on a lob to the back of the endzone. The defender grabs for Caldwell and grabs some jersey with one hand and almost full bore tackles him with the other. The defender actually grabs Caldwell's arm with the other hand and Caldwell gets turned around in the process.

As I remembered, Caldwell does start to fall as the ball gets there, but by that point it looks like the defender is involved in some hand tussling and Caldwell is not really in position to get to the back of the endzone where the ball winds up. So at the point Caldwell would need to make a play on the ball, it does look like the two are just mixed up in each other and the ball sails over Caldwell's head. But 5 yards early he was all but tackled (again, the defender pulled Caldwell's arm to drag him down) and no one saw it or called it. Instead of being 4th and 7 from the 20, it should have been 1st and goal from the 1. Seeing how the Pats settled for a FG (and their last points), that was a pivotal no call.

 

[videoguy505]

After watching the replay closer, is it your opinion that Hobbs "extended an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass?", for example?

 

[Tau837]

I had a chance to review both the Wayne/Hobbs play and the Caldwell play.

Wayne heads toward the back pylon and expects the ball over his shoulder but sees the ball coming short and along the sideline. Wayne seems to slow down to turn back toward the ball and has to alter his route as the ball is coming in at a different angle than he expected.

Hobbs is closer than I remembered and raises his left arm at the last second and the ball hits the back of his arm and the ball bounds away. At that point Wayne had actually turned himself all the way around and was now facing the goalline and getting in position to try to adjust to the pass which will end up being low and outside (on the sideline side of the endzone).

After watching the replay in slow motion about 10 times from 5 angles, Wayne and Hobbs end up very close to each other but it does not appear that Hobbs hits Wayne. If he does, Hobbs' hand grazes Wayne's hand after the ball is already knocked down. Wayne continues backwards out of the sideline near the back of the end zone. Hobbs keeps going straight through the back of the end zone.

Whether the ball was catchable or not may or may not be part of the rule, but IMO Wayne have had a tough time getting a hand or even a couple fingers on the ball while turning and his momentum carrying him away from the pass and out of the endzone. Where Hobbs was and was running, the ball could have hit him even if he did not try to get in the way.

Hobbs definitely gets in Wayne's way in his effort to catch the ball, but there really is no contact as far as I can tell. So the real issue is whether pass interference is enforcable on a play when there is no contact. Wayne does seem a little frazzled about the whole play and may have altered his path to the ball, but again he does not come into contact with Hobbs.

As for the Caldwell play, Caldwell definitely got mugged. Brady releases the ball on a lob to the back of the endzone. The defender grabs for Caldwell and grabs some jersey with one hand and almost full bore tackles him with the other. The defender actually grabs Caldwell's arm with the other hand and Caldwell gets turned around in the process.

As I remembered, Caldwell does start to fall as the ball gets there, but by that point it looks like the defender is involved in some hand tussling and Caldwell is not really in position to get to the back of the endzone where the ball winds up. So at the point Caldwell would need to make a play on the ball, it does look like the two are just mixed up in each other and the ball sails over Caldwell's head. But 5 yards early he was all but tackled (again, the defender pulled Caldwell's arm to drag him down) and no one saw it or called it. Instead of being 4th and 7 from the 20, it should have been 1st and goal from the 1. Seeing how the Pats settled for a FG (and their last points), that was a pivotal no call.

Or the real issue could have been that the official thought there was contact. You said yourself that the players were very close. Someone posted earlier that the ref had a poor angle. That is my guess as to the reason for the call.

 

[BGP]

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.

I use to faceguard all the time in basketball. I'd wait until they moved to shoot and then come at their face with my hand. I don't recall anyone ever hitting a shot on me when I did that. Can't recall anyone faking me out and driving past me when I did it, either.

 

[David Yudkin]

After watching the replay closer, is it your opinion that Hobbs "extended an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass?", for example?

IMO, Hobbs lifted his arm up in the air. I'm not sure if putting your arm in the air = extending an arm across the body of a receiver. In fact, he did not put his arm across the receiver at all.

 

[David Yudkin]

Or the real issue could have been that the official thought there was contact. You said yourself that the players were very close. Someone posted earlier that the ref had a poor angle. That is my guess as to the reason for the call.

The interesting part of this was the flag was thrown as soon as Hobbs lifted his arm up . . . BEFORE there was a chance to even consider if there was contact. So it looks like the ref saw that the defender made no effort to turn to play the ball and that was the end of it.

 

[PMENFAN]

I had a chance to review both the Wayne/Hobbs play and the Caldwell play.

Wayne heads toward the back pylon and expects the ball over his shoulder but sees the ball coming short and along the sideline. Wayne seems to slow down to turn back toward the ball and has to alter his route as the ball is coming in at a different angle than he expected.

Hobbs is closer than I remembered and raises his left arm at the last second and the ball hits the back of his arm and the ball bounds away. At that point Wayne had actually turned himself all the way around and was now facing the goalline and getting in position to try to adjust to the pass which will end up being low and outside (on the sideline side of the endzone).

After watching the replay in slow motion about 10 times from 5 angles, Wayne and Hobbs end up very close to each other but it does not appear that Hobbs hits Wayne. If he does, Hobbs' hand grazes Wayne's hand after the ball is already knocked down. Wayne continues backwards out of the sideline near the back of the end zone. Hobbs keeps going straight through the back of the end zone.

Whether the ball was catchable or not may or may not be part of the rule, but IMO Wayne have had a tough time getting a hand or even a couple fingers on the ball while turning and his momentum carrying him away from the pass and out of the endzone. Where Hobbs was and was running, the ball could have hit him even if he did not try to get in the way.

Hobbs definitely gets in Wayne's way in his effort to catch the ball, but there really is no contact as far as I can tell. So the real issue is whether pass interference is enforcable on a play when there is no contact. Wayne does seem a little frazzled about the whole play and may have altered his path to the ball, but again he does not come into contact with Hobbs.

As for the Caldwell play, Caldwell definitely got mugged. Brady releases the ball on a lob to the back of the endzone. The defender grabs for Caldwell and grabs some jersey with one hand and almost full bore tackles him with the other. The defender actually grabs Caldwell's arm with the other hand and Caldwell gets turned around in the process.

As I remembered, Caldwell does start to fall as the ball gets there, but by that point it looks like the defender is involved in some hand tussling and Caldwell is not really in position to get to the back of the endzone where the ball winds up. So at the point Caldwell would need to make a play on the ball, it does look like the two are just mixed up in each other and the ball sails over Caldwell's head. But 5 yards early he was all but tackled (again, the defender pulled Caldwell's arm to drag him down) and no one saw it or called it. Instead of being 4th and 7 from the 20, it should have been 1st and goal from the 1. Seeing how the Pats settled for a FG (and their last points), that was a pivotal no call.

Or the real issue could have been that the official thought there was contact. You said yourself that the players were very close. Someone posted earlier that the ref had a poor angle. That is my guess as to the reason for the call.

Just rewatched this play again. The defender here sees makes no play on the ball. It's all playing the receiver. Pivotal no call. Basically the same play as the Wayne play, only instead of no contact, the defender tackles the receiver to ensure he can't get to the ball. But, no call. One team gets first and goal. One team gets shafted. Another huge no call that I saw was on the huge completion to Clark on the sideline. I mentioned it earlier. I thought it was Colvin that bealt Glenn, but it's Seymour. Third and 10, Seymour beats Glenn and it going for Manning, Glenn leg whips, trips him to take him down, giving Manning the clean throw. No call, huge play for the Colts. Continues the drive. A 52 yard completion. Then the blatant false start by the right guard that they pinned on Seymour giving the Colts a first down. Would they have gotten it? Maybe. But, it should have been 3rd and 10, not first and 10. Yeah, Seymour was in the neutral zone, but the rules don't allow for the right guard to stand up and point it out and get the encroachment call.

Why don't we hear Bill Polian this week talking about calling the game according to the rules? Four hugely pivotal plays in the game, all in the Colts favor.

 

[David Yudkin]

Why don't we hear Bill Polian this week talking about calling the game according to the rules? Four hugely pivotal plays in the game, all in the Colts favor.

While it's nice to reflect on certain calls that may have been called differently, long story short the Patriots just couldn't put the Colts away.As for the Seymour play, it's not like Seymour did nothing. He crossed the line of scrimmage into the neutral zone. To the letter of the law, no, another lineman should not be allowed to get up and point. But at that point the damage is already done and it was initiated by Seymour. I didn't really have a problem with that call, as if Seymour didn't move then nothing would have happened.As for other plays involing the OL and DL, I contend that ifyou look hard enough you can find an infraction on at least 90% of all plays. Missing one is par for the course.

 

[Franknbeans]

I still am curious if as written it would be pass interference if a WR broke off the line and headed upfield with a defender follow himing and the QB nailed the defender in the back of the helmet as he and the WR started running upfield.The defender would have made no attempt to play the ball, made no effort to look for the ball, and caused the WR to not be able to catch the ball.

I don't think that is the same situation. In that case, the receiver also would not be playing the ball. It was clear that the receiver was about to make a play on the ball in the Championship game and could not because of Ellis' body.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

(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.

This can't possibly be meant to imply a foul occurs when there is no contact, or every batted ball or close-quarters interception would be pass interference. This says this rule applies REGARDLESS of whether the defender is playing the ball. I.e, he is to be called for PI even if he is playing the ball (unlike most of the other conditons in the PI rules where it depends on whether the defender plays the ball). This only makes sense if it refers to physically putting the arm across the player. To me, this says if you arm-bar the player, you get called for PI even if you're going for the ball at the same time. That's the only interpretation of this part of the rule that makes any sense to me.

 

[AB in DC]

I hope this comes up with Mike Perreira on his weekly bit on the NFL Network.

 

[parrot]

Or the real issue could have been that the official thought there was contact. You said yourself that the players were very close. Someone posted earlier that the ref had a poor angle. That is my guess as to the reason for the call.

If that's the case then it's more unexcusable than the rest of these explanations. Basically "I didn't see it, but I thought there might have been contact so I went ahead and called it."

 

[David Yudkin]

I hope this comes up with Mike Perreira on his weekly bit on the NFL Network.

I contacted NFL Network to see if there are plans to review this in more detail on NFL Total Access. I'll post if I hear back.

 

[brettdj]

Then the blatant false start by the right guard that they pinned on Seymour giving the Colts a first down. Would they have gotten it? Maybe. But, it should have been 3rd and 10, not first and 10. Yeah, Seymour was in the neutral zone, but the rules don't allow for the right guard to stand up and point it out and get the encroachment call.Why don't we hear Bill Polian this week talking about calling the game according to the rules? Four hugely pivotal plays in the game, all in the Colts favor.

That was a really smart move by the offensive lineman. And straight by the rules. Seymour in the neutral zone caused the lineman to jump up (and point)

 

[PMENFAN]

Then the blatant false start by the right guard that they pinned on Seymour giving the Colts a first down. Would they have gotten it? Maybe. But, it should have been 3rd and 10, not first and 10. Yeah, Seymour was in the neutral zone, but the rules don't allow for the right guard to stand up and point it out and get the encroachment call.Why don't we hear Bill Polian this week talking about calling the game according to the rules? Four hugely pivotal plays in the game, all in the Colts favor.

That was a really smart move by the offensive lineman. And straight by the rules. Seymour in the neutral zone caused the lineman to jump up (and point)

By the rules it'a supposed to be a cause and effect. Dlinemen used to flinch and try to cause the Olinemen to flinch, or draw a false start. That's the intent of the rule, and what the rule is supposed to be. I don't get the impression you saw the play, because that's not even close to what happened. Opposite sides of the field. Seymour jumps, is back across the line, and then the lieman stands up and points. Not reacting to Seymour. That's a false start, not reacting to the defensive player, according to the rule, and intent of the rule.

 

[David Yudkin]

Then the blatant false start by the right guard that they pinned on Seymour giving the Colts a first down. Would they have gotten it? Maybe. But, it should have been 3rd and 10, not first and 10. Yeah, Seymour was in the neutral zone, but the rules don't allow for the right guard to stand up and point it out and get the encroachment call.Why don't we hear Bill Polian this week talking about calling the game according to the rules? Four hugely pivotal plays in the game, all in the Colts favor.

That was a really smart move by the offensive lineman. And straight by the rules. Seymour in the neutral zone caused the lineman to jump up (and point)

By the rules it'a supposed to be a cause and effect. Dlinemen used to flinch and try to cause the Olinemen to flinch, or draw a false start. That's the intent of the rule, and what the rule is supposed to be. I don't get the impression you saw the play, because that's not even close to what happened. Opposite sides of the field. Seymour jumps, is back across the line, and then the lieman stands up and points. Not reacting to Seymour. That's a false start, not reacting to the defensive player, according to the rule, and intent of the rule.

This is where we disagree on the interpretation of the rule and what "cause and effect" actually means. If Seymour doesn't jump, the lineman would not have jumped up and pointed. That's where it gets debatable.Seymour was a fair amount past the line of scrimmage--he wasn't just a tiny bit and then moved back 6 inches. Again, I don't think that they blew this call because if Seymour didn't move at all the play would have gone off as planned.

 

[brettdj]

Then the blatant false start by the right guard that they pinned on Seymour giving the Colts a first down. Would they have gotten it? Maybe. But, it should have been 3rd and 10, not first and 10. Yeah, Seymour was in the neutral zone, but the rules don't allow for the right guard to stand up and point it out and get the encroachment call.Why don't we hear Bill Polian this week talking about calling the game according to the rules? Four hugely pivotal plays in the game, all in the Colts favor.

That was a really smart move by the offensive lineman. And straight by the rules. Seymour in the neutral zone caused the lineman to jump up (and point)

By the rules it'a supposed to be a cause and effect. Dlinemen used to flinch and try to cause the Olinemen to flinch, or draw a false start. That's the intent of the rule, and what the rule is supposed to be. I don't get the impression you saw the play, because that's not even close to what happened. Opposite sides of the field. Seymour jumps, is back across the line, and then the lieman stands up and points. Not reacting to Seymour. That's a false start, not reacting to the defensive player, according to the rule, and intent of the rule.

It was a reaction to the defensive player, just as the center snapping to the QB and a kneel down would have been. Only this did not allow a mishap on the exchange. It was not a typical reaction as a flinch would be, but it was a reaction. If the rules allow for this as they do, then it was very smart of the olineman to do it. In the future it might be addressed as more olineman do it.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

FWIW: One of the Colts linemen (I think it might have been the same one) did the same thing in the Baltimore game to get a penalty on Suggs. There might have been another case in that game as well.