certificate
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Is this pass interference? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter certificate
- Start date
certificate
Footballguy
Looks to me that Hood loses his footing, knows he's beat, so he makes a shoestring tackle before the ball gets there.
Great, heads-up play to prevent Curtis from getting YAC, but how it didn't get called as P.I. is beyond me.
Great, heads-up play to prevent Curtis from getting YAC, but how it didn't get called as P.I. is beyond me.
tbbucs4eva
Footballguy
the ball hit his hands, boldin or fitzgerald would of made that catch
the old unspoken rules says, if the ball hits your hands, you should catch the ball
the old unspoken rules says, if the ball hits your hands, you should catch the ball
morris4903
Footballguy
I thought it was and I was rooting for the Cards as well.
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
Um, he basically stumbled into tacklingCurtis when the ball was five yards away. You can pause that replay with the ball in the air and Curtis going down. I cannot imagine an interpretation of the rule that says this is not interference. I heard the term "incidental contact" used to defend the no call. That's sad denial of what your eyes plainly see. Curtis does not create contact. He runs a nice clean route. Hood stumbles on the break and takes out Curtis's legs with the ball still on its way. Clearly undeniably (well rationally anyway) interference. And I wanted the Cards to win.
certificate
Footballguy
While I completely agree with you on all 3 of your points, that wasn't the question.
tbbucs4eva
Footballguy
technically yes.......While I completely agree with you on all 3 of your points, that wasn't the question.
Gottabesweet
Footballguy
They both were falling and stumbling.
renesauz
IBL Representative
I've never been inlove with the incidental contact clause anyway, as I think it's overused. The receiver was moving laterally away from a stumbling defender. It doesn't have to be done on purpose to be PI.
That said...it was a tough call live, because the real contact was down around the ankles....it would have been a tough call to see. The first quarter non-call was much more blatant (when Avant got mugged on third down near the Cardinals goal line. That non-call may have cost Philly 4 points.)
That said...it was a tough call live, because the real contact was down around the ankles....it would have been a tough call to see. The first quarter non-call was much more blatant (when Avant got mugged on third down near the Cardinals goal line. That non-call may have cost Philly 4 points.)
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
He had an ideal view of that route, the break, the non contact by Curtis, the stumble and the penalty.
renesauz
IBL Representative
It was pretty clear Curtis only started falling after the defender was falling on his ankles.madd futher
Footballguy
Absolutely. and a ball becomes much harder to catch when you are knocked off balance so even tho it was technically catchable, I don't buy that 'ball hit his hands crap', and I don't blame Curtis. It is to bad they don't review PI calls.
BTW the reffing has been absolutely terrible throughout the season and throughout play-offs. Way too many blown calls. An extra ref on the field during the play-offs might help, but the officiating this whole season has been a joke IMO. Very bad for the game of football to have this calibre of officiating. It is about time the NFL did something about it.
And I'm not an Eagles fan.
BTW the reffing has been absolutely terrible throughout the season and throughout play-offs. Way too many blown calls. An extra ref on the field during the play-offs might help, but the officiating this whole season has been a joke IMO. Very bad for the game of football to have this calibre of officiating. It is about time the NFL did something about it.
And I'm not an Eagles fan.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
Watch the video in the link. On the replay you can pause it and start it several times from the break to the stumble to create a super slo mo. Curtis does not stumble until Hood takes his leg out. This is so plain it's confusing why some of you would want to defend the call.
MaddHatter
Footballguy
As an Eagles fan, I whole-heartedly agree!
certificate
Footballguy
Yeah, hood was falling and stumbling, then he tackles curtis, which causes him to fall and stumble.
King of the Wolfies
Footballguy
this was the makeup call for screwing up the out of bounds kickoff.
I slept thru have the game and thought the officiating was horrid.
I slept thru have the game and thought the officiating was horrid.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
That was clearly pass interference and I think it made for a next to impossible catch. I don't buy the argument about him catching it since he got his hands on it. He was falling and it happened pretty fast, and making that fast of an adjustment on the ball is very difficult. I also thought the TV guys missed it when they said it was a good call and they should let the players decide it. It's hard to let a WR decide it when he gets tackled before the ball gets there.
I just don't see any scenario where being tackled is not pass interference if the ball hasn't gotten there yet.
I just don't see any scenario where being tackled is not pass interference if the ball hasn't gotten there yet.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Here's the issue as I see/saw it. Curtis runs his route and he's the one that initiates contact. He swipes at and pushes away the arm of the defender just before he makes his cut to the sideline to help get some extra space. At that point, the defender starts to slip, falls down, and grabs Curtis' leg.
The part where the defender grabs his leg looks like pass interference, but the part where Curtis pushes the defender could be called offensive pass interference. As I see it, that bump/push from Curtis impacts the positioning of the defender. It's debatable whether that caused the dender to slip, but I do think it impacted how he was positioned to be able to defend the play.
If you watch it slowly, I think the defender would have been able to cut in front of Curtis but with the bump the defender loses his angle and ends up behind Curtis instead. The pushoff makes the defender have to back up a couple feet and changes his angle of attack. He propably would have been right on the 30 instead of on the 29 and that yard would have made all the difference.
I don't know the rules on what to call when one penalty leads to another penalty, but if there is no such clause IMO it should have been pass interference on both players and probably the down repayed. But I can't ever remember seeing a play with PI called on both players, so maybe there is a rule that says you can't call it that way.
The part where the defender grabs his leg looks like pass interference, but the part where Curtis pushes the defender could be called offensive pass interference. As I see it, that bump/push from Curtis impacts the positioning of the defender. It's debatable whether that caused the dender to slip, but I do think it impacted how he was positioned to be able to defend the play.
If you watch it slowly, I think the defender would have been able to cut in front of Curtis but with the bump the defender loses his angle and ends up behind Curtis instead. The pushoff makes the defender have to back up a couple feet and changes his angle of attack. He propably would have been right on the 30 instead of on the 29 and that yard would have made all the difference.
I don't know the rules on what to call when one penalty leads to another penalty, but if there is no such clause IMO it should have been pass interference on both players and probably the down repayed. But I can't ever remember seeing a play with PI called on both players, so maybe there is a rule that says you can't call it that way.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
dude, you're crying over spilled milk..you'll recall that Az got ROBBED when the officials blew the call when that one kick-off landed in bounds, and was recovered by Az but the officials said it hit the line, only to say later that they made the wrong call..
Az now has 1st down, Eagles 35-40 yard line , right?
game over right there..they had momentum, and the had a chance to deliver a knock-out blow.
to somehow think the Eagles would have won the game but we're 'robbed' by the officials is just plain
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Looked like incidental contact to me...
certificate
Footballguy
I'm not sure where you're getting this whole "robbed" thing from, I wanted to see if I was looking at the play through homer glasses, or if it was legitimately a terrible call. So far 2/3rds of the votes say it was P.I..As far as the out of bounds thing goes, Abiriami's foot was out of bounds and the ball bounced off him. The refs made the right call, but Aikman and Joe Buck (and apparently you) were too stupid to figure out that they didn't rule that the ball hit out of bounds, they ruled that the ball hit a player out of bounds.
dude, you're crying over spilled milk..
you'll recall that Az got ROBBED when the officials blew the call when that one kick-off landed in bounds, and was recovered by Az but the officials said it hit the line, only to say later that they made the wrong call..
Az now has 1st down, Eagles 35-40 yard line , right?
game over right there..they had momentum, and the had a chance to deliver a knock-out blow.
to somehow think the Eagles would have won the game but we're 'robbed' by the officials is just plain
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
That's not what they ruled, cause if it happened the way you just descibed it (ball hitting a player out of bounds) that is the same as hitting out of bounds and the ball would have been spotted at the 40. The only way they could spot it where they did was if the player touched the ball FIRST and then the ball hit him again when he was standing out of bounds.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
i have no dog in this fight. i enjoyed watching a very good game until a bad no call on that play put a bad taste in my mouth.
it was obviously PI.
if you disagree, congrats, because it means your team won.
it was obviously PI.
if you disagree, congrats, because it means your team won.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
So I'm the only one that noticed that Curtis initiated the contact and pushed off? No one else saw that or has any problem with that?
PatrickT
Footballguy
I saw that, and I didn't think that was relevant either. They didn't show this in the linked replay, but on the TV, they had a better angle where it looked, to me, that their feet got tangled as both were going for the ball. Could PI have been called? Yeah, but it was hardly blatant and I hate to see the refs decide it when it's not a blatant infraction. And, like I say in all these instances (even the blown muffed punt call we had against Philly), you shouldn't have put yourself in that position. Yeah, I was rooting for the Cards, but I thought it was a good non-call.
certificate
Footballguy
Oh, so Philadelphia should have had the ball at the 40, not the 25.Thanks for the clarification.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
If you look at the link in the OP you clear as day see Curtis grab/push the defender's arm just as he makes his cut. Technically that's not legal (and neither is the defender falling and hitting the receiver's leg). Not sure how you flag one and not the other (which is possibly why the ref didn't flag either).
David Yudkin
Footballguy
No. They ruled the ball hit the player twice. Once on the way down, once after the bounce. On the way down the player was clearly in bounds. On the bounce he clearly was out of bounds. Based on that determination, what they called was correct. (We can debate whether the ball hit the player on the way down, on the bounce, or not at all, but the way they ruled it was accurate base on their explanation.)
PatrickT
Footballguy
Yeah, I saw that, and think that, while technically illegal, wasn't blatant and shouldn't have been called. Ref let them play, isn't that usually what we ask them to do?
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Which is basically my point. If you let the first infraction go (Curtis pushing defender) then it stands to reason that they will let the second one go (defender hitting the receiver's leg). So those saying that they should ignore the first one but call the second one would have a tough case in my book.
switz
Footballguy
Except the ball never touched Abriami on the way back from the bounce.... it didn't even glaze him.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I just think that's a call you can't make in that situation.
In real speed the contact seemed insignificant as it occurred at his legs and Curtis got his hands on the ball. Plus he was stumbling and it was tough to tell if he was just catching himself or reaching out to grab his leg.
Technically pass interference when looking at a replay, but I would have had a hard time throwing the flag if I were the official.
In real speed the contact seemed insignificant as it occurred at his legs and Curtis got his hands on the ball. Plus he was stumbling and it was tough to tell if he was just catching himself or reaching out to grab his leg.
Technically pass interference when looking at a replay, but I would have had a hard time throwing the flag if I were the official.
While I agree Curtis initiated contact with the defender, it looks to me like nothing more than a swipe at the arm/hand of the defender, which happens during nearly every pass play. To qualify as a push off for PI, I think the WR has to make contact with the defender's body, not just an arm. Looks to me like the defender tried to break in front of Curtis to knock the ball down after Curtis made his cut, but stumbled and took down Curtis.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
If arms hitting arms were legal there would be a lot less defensive pass interference calls. The rules are neither party can initiate contact after the first 5 yards until the ball gets there. There are no provisions for what body part you hit.In this case, I concure the defender was positioning himself to cut in front of Curtis. However, when Curtis pushed the defender's arm it got him out of position (his feet were not in the right spot after the push) so when he tried to cut in front of Curtis his feet gave out. And we know what happened after that.We will never know what would have happened if CUrtis didn't bump the defender, but IMO what he did was just enough to give him an advantage to try to catch the pass (by getting better position to make the catch). The defender then nudged the receiver probably no harder than the receiver nudged him, but some what to call that defensive pass interference. I guess it depends on how you view the outcome and chain of events (which BTW is only something you can really do after watching hte replay several tiumes, a luxury the refs didn't have).I suppose people will argue that the first nudge should be labeled incidental contact and the second one should be called defensive pass interference. IMO if there was no first nudge there may not have been any need to grab the receiver's leg. I have no problem with this being a no call for both guys, but clearly some folks don't agree with that.roarlions said:
Not a fan of either team.
It was incidental contact. It looked more dramatic than it actually was, particularly when they show it in slow mo.
Unless it's blatant, the referee is not going to make a crucial call like that in the championship game. You let the players play. Both had contact and the AZ defender fell and tripped the WR off his line for the ball.
The out of bounds non call taking the ball away from AZ and the goal line non-catch were more serious errors in calls than the late pass. IMO
It was incidental contact. It looked more dramatic than it actually was, particularly when they show it in slow mo.
Unless it's blatant, the referee is not going to make a crucial call like that in the championship game. You let the players play. Both had contact and the AZ defender fell and tripped the WR off his line for the ball.
The out of bounds non call taking the ball away from AZ and the goal line non-catch were more serious errors in calls than the late pass. IMO
Last edited by a moderator:
Black
Footballguy
If you watch the reverse angle, the DB falls and hits (grabs?) Curtis' calf (just below the knee, I think) as he goes down.
So, he effectively tackled Curtis before the ball arrives. I think that deserves a flag.
Now, if it was an 'accident', like when a DB and WR's feet get tangled or 'incidental' contact when the DB fell, is that PI? I am not sure.
So, he effectively tackled Curtis before the ball arrives. I think that deserves a flag.
Now, if it was an 'accident', like when a DB and WR's feet get tangled or 'incidental' contact when the DB fell, is that PI? I am not sure.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I saw that and agree with you.David Yudkin said:
I don't buy the push-off argument, you couldn't have a football game if you were going to make that offensive call, it happens pretty much every play. Curtis never got into his body, it was a hand check. It happens constantly.
On the other hand the defender recovers and puts his hip into Curtis, which is why his feet got tangled and his arm is around the receivers waste (first pass interference possiblilty). Then he falls and extends his arm laterally. He's not breaking his fall, he's making a tackle (second and more difficult to ignore). The reason he's doing this is because if Curtis doesnt get pulled down and makes that catch, he picks up another 10 or 15 yards and gets out of bounds easily. Look at his reaction, he freezes after the play for a few seconds. He's waiting for a flag.
We're talking about judment calls here, obviously. In my mind, a hand check does not equal a tackle. You see a hand check almost every passing play. You don't see a receiver pulled down before the ball gets there. At least not without a flag being thrown. In my mind the defender still had a chance to make the play after the hand check. Curtis might have made the catch falling down, but he couldn't have run with it after the play for sure.
On the other hand the defender recovers and puts his hip into Curtis, which is why his feet got tangled and his arm is around the receivers waste (first pass interference possiblilty). Then he falls and extends his arm laterally. He's not breaking his fall, he's making a tackle (second and more difficult to ignore). The reason he's doing this is because if Curtis doesnt get pulled down and makes that catch, he picks up another 10 or 15 yards and gets out of bounds easily. Look at his reaction, he freezes after the play for a few seconds. He's waiting for a flag.
We're talking about judment calls here, obviously. In my mind, a hand check does not equal a tackle. You see a hand check almost every passing play. You don't see a receiver pulled down before the ball gets there. At least not without a flag being thrown. In my mind the defender still had a chance to make the play after the hand check. Curtis might have made the catch falling down, but he couldn't have run with it after the play for sure.
In real time I don't see how you can possibly throw a PI flag on that.
Technically he did hit his leg a split second before the ball got there, and it did affect Curtis's ability to catch ball, so it was PI.
If I was a Philly fan I'd be upset, but it was not one of those obviously wrong calls to hold a lifetime grudge over.
Ex. If I was a Miami fan I could never forgive the ref that called PI in the Ohio State game, as that was obviously the wrong call.
Luckily I'm a fan of neither.
Technically he did hit his leg a split second before the ball got there, and it did affect Curtis's ability to catch ball, so it was PI.
If I was a Philly fan I'd be upset, but it was not one of those obviously wrong calls to hold a lifetime grudge over.
Ex. If I was a Miami fan I could never forgive the ref that called PI in the Ohio State game, as that was obviously the wrong call.
Luckily I'm a fan of neither.
Similar threads
- Poll
