Pass Interference: Yes or No?

Page 5 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 | 5899 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #61
    barrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Posts
    1,611

    Until it was brought up here I had never heard of an official or crew interpreting that the expanded neutral zone would apply all the way out to the sidelines. The official here stated that was how he was told to interpret and enforce it.

    The person being a TE really has no bearing. Part of this has to do with how officials call penalties. For example a guard drifts outside the expanded neutral zone and hits a defender. That is OPI but it is commonly just called illegal man downfield. If the G just gets downfield but never contacts anyone then it’s illegal man downfield. Then of course there is the issue that where is that guard when the ball cross the line of scrimmage or passes the neutral zone. I know that illegal man downfield isn’t really part of the discussion. It has to do with somethings that lead to confusion.

    I have a reply earlier in the thread that goes into the expanded neutral zone and how it was explained to me by a head of officials.
    Advertisement

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Aug 17
    Posts
    167

    No wonder no one wants to be an official.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Sep 15
    Posts
    120

    Quote Originally Posted by barrel View Post
    Until it was brought up here I had never heard of an official or crew interpreting that the expanded neutral zone would apply all the way out to the sidelines. The official here stated that was how he was told to interpret and enforce it.

    The person being a TE really has no bearing. Part of this has to do with how officials call penalties. For example a guard drifts outside the expanded neutral zone and hits a defender. That is OPI but it is commonly just called illegal man downfield. If the G just gets downfield but never contacts anyone then it’s illegal man downfield. Then of course there is the issue that where is that guard when the ball cross the line of scrimmage or passes the neutral zone. I know that illegal man downfield isn’t really part of the discussion. It has to do with somethings that lead to confusion.

    I have a reply earlier in the thread that goes into the expanded neutral zone and how it was explained to me by a head of officials.
    I understand what you are saying the point I am making is the word expanded neutral zone is only used in that particular instance which to me means expanded neutral zone does not apply to a pass beyond the neutral zone or it would have said that. Example why would they use it in the context of linemen but not in the general definition? They wouldn’t meaning when they say neutral zone that’s what they mean and not expanded. I said TE simply because it was referring to defensive lineman not because it only applied to TE. I will copy the rule and show it here as it is clear the definition of PI is any contact offense or defense after the ball travels past the neutral zone (not the expanded) the only time expanded is used is when pertaining to defensive linemen as defined in this same rule set. It’s black and white not opinion or what an official said it’s plan as day in the rule book.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 15
    Posts
    120

    Copy of the definition from the handbook and the expanded neutral zone contact where is says linemen

    Name:  6B9824F8-2E2D-4E02-8547-84841F8F9516.jpeg
Views: 104
Size:  226.2 KBName:  90E2CDAC-A783-4671-A6DF-1B1E6313EB3A.jpeg
Views: 101
Size:  231.3 KB

    Basically what it boils down to is that there can be contact inside the expanded neutral zone but not while the ball is in the air if it travels beyond the neutral zone there for by rule if he got there before the ball the ref had every right to justify calling PI. Either way it was a judgment call by him but based on the rules there is enough there to have called it

  5. #65
    barrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Posts
    1,611

    We agree that the expanded neutral zone only pertains to the OL/DL. I’ve agreed with that from the beginning. I also have always agreed that the only time expanded neutral zone applies in the rules is when it specifies the term expanded neutral zone.

    You can have contact inside the expanded neutral zone when a ball passes the neutral zone. It happens on most play action passes and now with the RPO game.

    Now the rules do not state there can be no physical contact between player A or B while the ball is in the air. 7-5-10 is where to look for what constitutes PI.

    As far as it being black and white I wish it was that easy but it’s not. Crews have different interpretations of the rules. They apply them differently. It is just the way it is. We could have a whole thread of how different rules are applied and how they are applied in different areas of the state.

    Myself personally if I’m coaching in that game I’m not arguing the call either way. They call PI ok. They call no PI ok. I’m coaching my kids and going on. I might ask for an explanation so I’m on the same page but I’m not arguing it.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Sep 15
    Posts
    120

    Quote Originally Posted by barrel View Post
    We agree that the expanded neutral zone only pertains to the OL/DL. I’ve agreed with that from the beginning. I also have always agreed that the only time expanded neutral zone applies in the rules is when it specifies the term expanded neutral zone.

    You can have contact inside the expanded neutral zone when a ball passes the neutral zone. It happens on most play action passes and now with the RPO game.

    Now the rules do not state there can be no physical contact between player A or B while the ball is in the air. 7-5-10 is where to look for what constitutes PI.

    As far as it being black and white I wish it was that easy but it’s not. Crews have different interpretations of the rules. They apply them differently. It is just the way it is. We could have a whole thread of how different rules are applied and how they are applied in different areas of the state.

    Myself personally if I’m coaching in that game I’m not arguing the call either way. They call PI ok. They call no PI ok. I’m coaching my kids and going on. I might ask for an explanation so I’m on the same page but I’m not arguing it.
    I agree it is left open to interpretation by the official, but the rule is black and white as far as the definition you can't hit/touch each other. How much is the interpretation part but again the point I am making is that there is enough there to have called the penalty, so the answer to the original post is by rule it was PI based on the official determination of how much contact is to much. I will say this as I was standing right behind the official no one on the Boyle sideline said a word about the penalty I am not sure if they even knew it had been called. If you watch the video, you can see that the official throws the penalty flag a split second after the contact is made, so no one influenced the call. I think we are saying mostly the same thing but in a roundabout different way. I will also add not to argue with anyone I am a Boyle fan, but I only commented on the rules as I don't care what the call was, either way, I am a student of the game and want to understand the rules as much as I can. I say that to say this standing there; I had a pretty good view and the reason the ball deflects the way it does it because the defender hit the receiver into the ball. Again not arguing what is right or wrong merely the rule itself and giving the perspective I had during what might be the best football experience of my lifetime.

  7. #67
    barrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Posts
    1,611

    I was trying to imply either team was arguing the call. I just didn’t know the best way to put that disclaimer on my statement.

    From the video it was tough to tell who the ball deflected off of. I thought it might of deflected off the defender. It looks like both are making a bonafid attempt on the ball.

    Tough call no matter how you look at it.

  8. #68
    85_Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 01
    Location
    Boyle Co.
    Posts
    2,291

    Name:  46444490_10217428538055143_1157709547033329664_n.jpg
Views: 122
Size:  145.3 KB

    This may shed some light on the conversation

  9. #69
    85_Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 01
    Location
    Boyle Co.
    Posts
    2,291

    If this is what the ref saw from the sideline......"Flag on the play"

  10. #70
    Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 02
    Location
    Titletown USA
    Posts
    7,318

    Quote Originally Posted by 85_Rebel View Post
    Name:  46444490_10217428538055143_1157709547033329664_n.jpg
Views: 122
Size:  145.3 KB

    This may shed some light on the conversation
    Good quality pic of the play in question.

  11. #71

    Join Date
    Aug 17
    Posts
    167

    As a defense guy, I am still going with he is making a play on the ball. I would have to see him turn the receivers body with his off hand to call interference on this play. Again contact is allowed if making a legitimate attempt to catch or bat the ball. Looks pretty Legite with the left hand outstretched toward the ball and head focused on incoming pass. That being said I understand from this photo that the play could have been called either way. Great photo either way.

  12. #72

    Join Date
    Dec 04
    Location
    My wife's house
    Posts
    1,636

    Quote Originally Posted by CAL FAN View Post
    As a defense guy, I am still going with he is making a play on the ball. I would have to see him turn the receivers body with his off hand to call interference on this play. Again contact is allowed if making a legitimate attempt to catch or bat the ball. Looks pretty Legite with the left hand outstretched toward the ball and head focused on incoming pass. That being said I understand from this photo that the play could have been called either way. Great photo either way.
    I would attend to agree but if you are going for the ball then there would be no reason to put your hand on the receiver. A defender has a right to the ball and if he is going for the ball he would be going at it with both hands.

  13. #73

    Join Date
    Dec 04
    Location
    My wife's house
    Posts
    1,636

    I know that we are talking about this play because it was a play that could have been a TD for Belfry. But want about the play were Boyle had the ball around the 15 yard line going for it on 4th down and Colwick was hit by the Linebacker and no PI was called on that one. If it was then Boyle might have scored on that series.

  14. #74
    barrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Posts
    1,611

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelstat View Post
    I know that we are talking about this play because it was a play that could have been a TD for Belfry. But want about the play were Boyle had the ball around the 15 yard line going for it on 4th down and Colwick was hit by the Linebacker and no PI was called on that one. If it was then Boyle might have scored on that series.
    Was the ball in the air? Was he the intend rec? Where was the player and what route was he running?

  15. #75

    Join Date
    Dec 04
    Location
    My wife's house
    Posts
    1,636

    Yes, yes and ball was around the 20 or 15 and the play was running a crossing route about the 10. At the time I thought that was more of a PI than the one we are talking about.

Top