Pass Interference: Yes or No?

Page 4 of Is this pass interference: Yes or No? This was a controversial play in last night's Belfry/Boyle game. I didn't want to post this in the game thread. h... 84 comments | 5551 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #46

    Join Date
    Jul 15
    Location
    Danville, KY
    Posts
    2,079

    Name:  C608FC5D-F451-4B5A-8878-5ACF0D27807A.jpeg
Views: 244
Size:  40.6 KB

    I tried my best to zoom in and stop the camera when the defender made contact with the receiver and circled the ball location. From what I can tell the ball is still in the air when the defender makes significant contact with the receiver therefore being PI.
    Advertisement

  2. #47
    barrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Posts
    1,554

    I honestly donít care who won the game. Most of the discussion has been about how officials will interpret and enforce the rules. It can vary of course from crew to crew and area to area.

    7-5-11
    Would be another rule to look at if one doesnít agree with the expanded neutral zone explanation

  3. #48
    HT721's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 07
    Posts
    5,564

    Quote Originally Posted by barrel View Post
    I honestly don’t care who won the game. Most of the discussion has been about how officials will interpret and enforce the rules. It can vary of course from crew to crew and area to area.

    7-5-11
    Would be another rule to look at if one doesn’t agree with the expanded neutral zone explanation
    That’s what I was getting at with the ball under thrown, it’s obvious how the receiver is going back that the ball is not going to the designed location which to me contributes to the contact. I have no dog in this fight as I work games in a far away region that rarely plays either of these teams, but it is an excellent play to analyze from a rules/philosophy position.

  4. #49

    Join Date
    Aug 17
    Posts
    22

    If the same play happened on Belfrys sideline it is a touchdown. Iím sure the Boyle County coaches players and fans were all over the official. Great game though and I donít want to take anything away from Boyle, they have an outstanding team. In most championship quests whether it be high school, college or pro, there is always that one game that the really good teams find a way to win when they shouldnít have. This was Boyle County and I look for them to take another state championship. Also hoping to see Smith in blue and white at the collegiate level. Robinson Smith and the Allen kid from Catholic would be fun to watch on the same team. Looking forward already to Boyle and Johnson Central hooking up next year in 4A

  5. #50

    Join Date
    Aug 17
    Posts
    22

    I was always a big fan of Jerry Claiborne who coached at KY in the 80s. He would always play the old ifin game. If this happened if that happened and we all do it, this is what makes these forums interesting and entertaining. If the touchdown had been allowed putting Belfry up 17 - 0 itís over turn out the lights. Boyle County had already begun to unravel but with the interference call and the two turnovers (gifts) that Belfry gave them (turnovers at the 26 and 13). Boyle got their composure back and pulled away. If they play 10 times Boyle probably wins 9 of them, but, this is one that Belfry had in their grasp and couldnít seal the deal.

  6. #51

    Join Date
    Jan 14
    Posts
    127

    Quote Originally Posted by piratered View Post
    I was always a big fan of Jerry Claiborne who coached at KY in the 80s. He would always play the old ifin game. If this happened if that happened and we all do it, this is what makes these forums interesting and entertaining. If the touchdown had been allowed putting Belfry up 17 - 0 it’s over turn out the lights. Boyle County had already begun to unravel but with the interference call and the two turnovers (gifts) that Belfry gave them (turnovers at the 26 and 13). Boyle got their composure back and pulled away. If they play 10 times Boyle probably wins 9 of them, but, this is one that Belfry had in their grasp and couldn’t seal the deal.
    This post is funny on so many levels. Boyle had not started to unravel shows how much you know about Boyle county kids and their coaching staff. Boyle kids don’t know what the word give up is. Secondly, Belfry I don’t think gave Boyle any fumbles, nobody on Belfry team wanted the ball because of Boyle defense so they threw it down.

    I know that isn’t what you seen but your glasses and mine are two different colors and show two different games.

  7. #52
    ATLCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 11
    Posts
    11,625

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackandGold View Post
    This post is funny on so many levels. Boyle had not started to unravel shows how much you know about Boyle county kids and their coaching staff. Boyle kids don’t know what the word give up is. Secondly, Belfry I don’t think gave Boyle any fumbles, nobody on Belfry team wanted the ball because of Boyle defense so they threw it down.

    I know that isn’t what you seen but your glasses and mine are two different colors and show two different games.
    LOL I would say both posts are slanted wayyyyyy too far in the opposite directions

    Boyle County was far from "unraveling", to be honest, Boyle was the polar opposite which is why Belfry jumped out. I think Boyle was a bit too even keel and a bit surprised by Belfry's intensity. The second some of that energy burned off from Belfry and the second momentum shifted Boyle's way they settled in to a groove that never relented.

    As for the fumbles, Belfry laid it on the ground 4 times. One was as Coleman was reaching for extra yards while being tackles so clearly forced, one was the direct result of Boyle penetration and the QB panicking with his read.. the other two were totally unforced and uncharacteristic.

    Belfry was running up and down the field on Boyle and had at least three times where a shoe string tackle was the only thing between a run to the secondary and a run to the endzone. I can assure you it was not the case of "noone wanting the ball to face Boyle's Defense" HAHA. Tt was a physical game, but I am not sure it would have made the Top 3 most physical games Belfry had seen all season.

    The truth is in the middle. Boyle forced one fumble directly and another was indirect, but certainly forced by the Boyle penetration on the play. The other two fumbles were just bad ball handling and completely unforced. Boyle fans can take credit and say they had the game sped up, but you can easily argue it was just as Belfry rushed themselves because they were having so much success in the First Half rushing the ball and were pressing to keep that steady pressure going.

    I do know one thing though. There was no unraveling of Boyle County that I saw, their players and coaches were un-waivering all game and stuck to the gameplan and that is what ultimately played out.

    Now if it became 17-0 and Belfry didn't set up Boyle around the 20 and somehow took that lead into the Half, could Belfry have applied some pressure that Boyle had not been accustomed to? Sure... with that said that's a whole lot of if's and but's that never played out so we have no clue.

  8. #53

    Join Date
    Jan 14
    Posts
    127

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLCat View Post
    LOL I would say both posts are slanted wayyyyyy too far in the opposite directions

    Boyle County was far from "unraveling", to be honest, Boyle was the polar opposite which is why Belfry jumped out. I think Boyle was a bit too even keel and a bit surprised by Belfry's intensity. The second some of that energy burned off from Belfry and the second momentum shifted Boyle's way they settled in to a groove that never relented.

    As for the fumbles, Belfry laid it on the ground 4 times. One was as Coleman was reaching for extra yards while being tackles so clearly forced, one was the direct result of Boyle penetration and the QB panicking with his read.. the other two were totally unforced and uncharacteristic.

    Belfry was running up and down the field on Boyle and had at least three times where a shoe string tackle was the only thing between a run to the secondary and a run to the endzone. I can assure you it was not the case of "noone wanting the ball to face Boyle's Defense" HAHA. Tt was a physical game, but I am not sure it would have made the Top 3 most physical games Belfry had seen all season.

    The truth is in the middle. Boyle forced one fumble directly and another was indirect, but certainly forced by the Boyle penetration on the play. The other two fumbles were just bad ball handling and completely unforced. Boyle fans can take credit and say they had the game sped up, but you can easily argue it was just as Belfry rushed themselves because they were having so much success in the First Half rushing the ball and were pressing to keep that steady pressure going.

    I do know one thing though. There was no unraveling of Boyle County that I saw, their players and coaches were un-waivering all game and stuck to the gameplan and that is what ultimately played out.

    Now if it became 17-0 and Belfry didn't set up Boyle around the 20 and somehow took that lead into the Half, could Belfry have applied some pressure that Boyle had not been accustomed to? Sure... with that said that's a whole lot of if's and but's that never played out so we have no clue.
    My quote was meant to be sarcastic because hopefully his was and he really didn’t believe the game would have been over and unraveling etc....

    As far as a physical game I asked several of the kids and they said it wasn’t as physical as what they had been led to believe said it was just another normal football game and I agree there was a couple of good hits from both sides but for the most part just missed tackles.

  9. #54

    Join Date
    Aug 17
    Posts
    22

    Was just saying that if Belfry goes up 17 - 0, with Belfrys ball control offense it would have been difficult for Boyle, no way could they match touchdown for touchdown and win. Again nothing against Boyle they have an outstanding team, but that would have been a big hole to climb out of.

  10. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    711

    No way should that have been called. Been on the other sideline 100% positive it would not have been called.

  11. #56

    Join Date
    Jan 14
    Posts
    127

    Name:  ADFBC090-0FB4-4B5A-B16E-B9906395EF8D.jpeg
Views: 102
Size:  228.8 KB

  12. #57
    charlesw88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 07
    Location
    Junction City, KY
    Posts
    3,481

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackandGold View Post
    Name:  ADFBC090-0FB4-4B5A-B16E-B9906395EF8D.jpeg
Views: 102
Size:  228.8 KB
    Much better look. That blurry stuff was killing me.

  13. #58

    Join Date
    Aug 18
    Posts
    18

    That shows and proves definite pass interference. My last year of coaching High School before moving to college they put the rule in "any contact prior to the ball arriving including use of hands is pass interference" so that picture should end the discussion.

  14. #59
    barrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Posts
    1,554

    Quote Originally Posted by RetiredCoach80 View Post
    That shows and proves definite pass interference. My last year of coaching High School before moving to college they put the rule in "any contact prior to the ball arriving including use of hands is pass interference" so that picture should end the discussion.
    That’s not how it reads in the rulebook. In the section that states what constitutes PI.

    Once again I have no dog in the fight. This thread for me is more about the discussion on the rule and how it is interpreted. We have one official on here that says he would never call it due to the expanded neutral zone. I’ve had other officials that say that the expanded neutral zone only applies to the OL/DL and that it only applies to rules where it is expeciltly mentioned. Crews have different ideas of what constitutes PI.

  15. #60

    Join Date
    Sep 15
    Posts
    119

    Quote Originally Posted by barrel View Post
    Thatís not how it reads in the rulebook. In the section that states what constitutes PI.

    Once again I have no dog in the fight. This thread for me is more about the discussion on the rule and how it is interpreted. We have one official on here that says he would never call it due to the expanded neutral zone. Iíve had other officials that say that the expanded neutral zone only applies to the OL/DL and that it only applies to rules where it is expeciltly mentioned. Crews have different ideas of what constitutes PI.
    So the rules issue got me to thinking so I bought a copy of the 2018 rulebook from NFHS and I think there is an article in it for pass interference that clears some of this up but maybe not all. In 7-5 article 10 is says that pass interference is not in play when player A (offense) touches player b LINEMAN (defensive lineman) unless it is beyond the expanded neutral zone. This would lead one to believe that it would be referring to a TE and defensive lineman as they will be in that area as it says explicitly, LINEMAN. After reading this rule several times today that is the only time in any definition where the term expanded neutral zone is used. The term used in this article when about the definition of pass interference is when the ball is thrown beyond the neutral zone, not the expanded neutral zone. So I ask this question why use the term expanded when talking about lineman and not in the definition. The answer is simple there is no illegal contact allowed when the ball is thrown beyond the neutral zone and not the expanded neutral zone. If anyone would like I can try to copy the rule on here but I am not sure I am allowed with the book costing money.

Top