I've never seen offensive pass interference called where the offending player is running and looking at the QB for a possible pass. Totally incidental contact.
who said it was "obviously" the correct call. Which was ridiculous. If it's not considered PI when a defender accidentally gets his feet tangled with a receiver, then how can it be PI when a receiver and defender inadvertently collide?
Meanwhile, actual rub routes, designed with the intent of causing separation between receivers and defenders trailing them, are routinely ignored.
There is no such exemption for an offensive player who is not playing the ball cutting off the path of a defender attempting to guard another receiver.
There is no such exemption for an offensive player who is not playing the ball cutting off the path of a defender attempting to guard another receiver.
Which is what happened.
the rule - ( New Window )
Thanks for posting the rule Shyster, but it should NOT have been pass interference:
Quote:
Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:
Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
Incidental body contact isn't pass interference, and any doubt about whether the contact was incidental should result in no PI.
RE: There is a specific exemption for unintentional tangling of feet
There is no such exemption for an offensive player who is not playing the ball cutting off the path of a defender attempting to guard another receiver.
Which is what happened.
the rule - ( New Window )
In two places, apart from explicit reference to the feet getting tangled, it says that if there is any question whether the contact was incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
And even apart from that, on what basis does one call it OPI instead of DPI? Both Sills and the guy he ran into had the same right to the ball.
RE: RE: There is a specific exemption for unintentional tangling of feet
Thanks for posting the rule Shyster, but it should NOT have been pass interference:
Quote:
Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:
Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
Incidental body contact isn't pass interference, and any doubt about whether the contact was incidental should result in no PI.
The question is: what's "incidental"?
It doesn't mean unintentional. When the rules want to say unintentional, they do, as with the exemption for tangling of the feet.
I would say that the sense of the rules is that "incidental" means not having any significant impact on the outcome of the play.
The pick clearly sprung Toney wide open.
RE: RE: There is a specific exemption for unintentional tangling of feet
In two places, apart from explicit reference to the feet getting tangled, it says that if there is any question whether the contact was incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
And even apart from that, on what basis does one call it OPI instead of DPI? Both Sills and the guy he ran into had the same right to the ball.
Regarding incidental, see my response to lawguy.
The ball wasn't thrown in Sills' direction for him to play it. It was thrown to a Giant who was being guarded by the guy Sills' picked out of the play.
First the contact probably wasn't intentional that far down field off a broken pocket. However when you watch the replay you can see where the ref would see it as a pick. It was a strange play, probably accidental but I can see why they called it.
RE: RE: RE: There is a specific exemption for unintentional tangling of feet
In two places, apart from explicit reference to the feet getting tangled, it says that if there is any question whether the contact was incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
And even apart from that, on what basis does one call it OPI instead of DPI? Both Sills and the guy he ran into had the same right to the ball.
Regarding incidental, see my response to lawguy.
The ball wasn't thrown in Sills' direction for him to play it. It was thrown to a Giant who was being guarded by the guy Sills' picked out of the play.
So are you saying that if the ball were thrown where Sills was going, the exact same contact should have been defensive pass interference?
RE: RE: RE: RE: There is a specific exemption for unintentional tangling of feet
So are you saying that if the ball were thrown where Sills was going, the exact same contact should have been defensive pass interference?
Yes. The rule makes "playing the ball" a decisive factor.
Article 2 (e) of the link above:
Quote:
Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball
But neither player was "playing the ball" at the time, because the ball hadn't been thrown yet. I believe it was either offensive pass interference or illegal contact by the defense. Or incidental contact with no penalty. I'm not sure how by the rule you could distinguish one from the other on this play.
it WAS PI- the defenders path was cut off. However, to anyone watching ( and that should include the official), it was unintentional. Since he was looking at the QB. Probably shouldn’t have been called, like half a dozen holding pénalités on Leo weren’t. He got mugged all game and only one holding penalty.
It’s what Toney did. He ran the DB into sills. Toney knew what he was doing. Sills was called because Toney did it with intent. That’s the way I saw it.
This was farther downfield and probably unintentional, but Sills turned his head and saw the defender right before contact. I don’t believe it was designed to work that way or that Sills was running an intentional pick, but I don’t believe his intent has anything to do with the call. If he was stopped and the defender ran into him it is not PI. Sills was moving toward the defender and made contact, so it was PI.
This was not a blatantly bad call as some here are making it out to be.
It’s what Toney did. He ran the DB into sills. Toney knew what he was doing. Sills was called because Toney did it with intent. That’s the way I saw it.
Ah, no. It was called because Sills ran into the defender, not because of Toney. The DB could have avoided Sills himself, he saw Sills coming as much as Sills saw the DB. Toney was running his route, I think Sills altered his when he saw Jones scramble.
(incidental contact not a foul) then the refs are probably going to play it safe and make the call especially if the wr was looking at the defender (which it was). Otherwise, you get players trying to sell 'incidental contact' which can become quite messy.
I don't think Sills' job on the play was to pick anyone, nor do I think he did it on purpose, but I understand why the call was made.
That kind of play becomes a slippery slope and teams will run it all game
That's what some fans seem to be missing - thanks Sy for pointing this out.
The play design itself is begging to be a pick, even if Sills isn't specifically tasked with seeking out Toney's man and getting in his way. Just the route concept alone is going to lead to a likelihood that there's going to be some washout there and one of the receivers will emerge wide open.
The same would occur if the defense found a way to accidentally on purpose interfere with receivers "incidentally." It would get called.
I was disappointed that the play got called back, but I understood why the officials called it.
That kind of play becomes a slippery slope and teams will run it all game
That's what some fans seem to be missing - thanks Sy for pointing this out.
The play design itself is begging to be a pick, even if Sills isn't specifically tasked with seeking out Toney's man and getting in his way. Just the route concept alone is going to lead to a likelihood that there's going to be some washout there and one of the receivers will emerge wide open.
The same would occur if the defense found a way to accidentally on purpose interfere with receivers "incidentally." It would get called.
I was disappointed that the play got called back, but I understood why the officials called it.
Yep.
RE: RE: It wasnt called because of what sills did.
It’s what Toney did. He ran the DB into sills. Toney knew what he was doing. Sills was called because Toney did it with intent. That’s the way I saw it.
Ah, no. It was called because Sills ran into the defender, not because of Toney. The DB could have avoided Sills himself, he saw Sills coming as much as Sills saw the DB. Toney was running his route, I think Sills altered his when he saw Jones scramble.
Lmao. Yes I’m aware the call was made because the contact was between sills and the DB. sills ran into the defender but sills was totally unaware looking back at the QB. Sills had no intent of setting a pick right there. When he glanced back at the DB it was a split second before contact. Toney saw sills running his route. He was not looking back at the qb. Toney ran the DB into sills intentionally. You can see how Toney ducks out of the way leaving the DB and sills to make contact. To me Toney realized what he was doing but it was worth a shot.
Meanwhile, actual rub routes, designed with the intent of causing separation between receivers and defenders trailing them, are routinely ignored.
Which is what happened.
the rule - ( New Window )
Which is what happened.
the rule - ( New Window )
Thanks for posting the rule Shyster, but it should NOT have been pass interference:
Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
Incidental body contact isn't pass interference, and any doubt about whether the contact was incidental should result in no PI.
Which is what happened.
the rule - ( New Window )
In two places, apart from explicit reference to the feet getting tangled, it says that if there is any question whether the contact was incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
And even apart from that, on what basis does one call it OPI instead of DPI? Both Sills and the guy he ran into had the same right to the ball.
Thanks for posting the rule Shyster, but it should NOT have been pass interference:
Quote:
Acts that are permissible by a player include, but are not limited to:
Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
Incidental body contact isn't pass interference, and any doubt about whether the contact was incidental should result in no PI.
The question is: what's "incidental"?
It doesn't mean unintentional. When the rules want to say unintentional, they do, as with the exemption for tangling of the feet.
I would say that the sense of the rules is that "incidental" means not having any significant impact on the outcome of the play.
The pick clearly sprung Toney wide open.
In two places, apart from explicit reference to the feet getting tangled, it says that if there is any question whether the contact was incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
And even apart from that, on what basis does one call it OPI instead of DPI? Both Sills and the guy he ran into had the same right to the ball.
Regarding incidental, see my response to lawguy.
The ball wasn't thrown in Sills' direction for him to play it. It was thrown to a Giant who was being guarded by the guy Sills' picked out of the play.
Quote:
In two places, apart from explicit reference to the feet getting tangled, it says that if there is any question whether the contact was incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
And even apart from that, on what basis does one call it OPI instead of DPI? Both Sills and the guy he ran into had the same right to the ball.
Regarding incidental, see my response to lawguy.
The ball wasn't thrown in Sills' direction for him to play it. It was thrown to a Giant who was being guarded by the guy Sills' picked out of the play.
So are you saying that if the ball were thrown where Sills was going, the exact same contact should have been defensive pass interference?
So are you saying that if the ball were thrown where Sills was going, the exact same contact should have been defensive pass interference?
Yes. The rule makes "playing the ball" a decisive factor.
Article 2 (e) of the link above:
Quote:
So are you saying that if the ball were thrown where Sills was going, the exact same contact should have been defensive pass interference?
Yes. The rule makes "playing the ball" a decisive factor.
Article 2 (e) of the link above:
Quote:
Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball
But neither player was "playing the ball" at the time, because the ball hadn't been thrown yet. I believe it was either offensive pass interference or illegal contact by the defense. Or incidental contact with no penalty. I'm not sure how by the rule you could distinguish one from the other on this play.
If it isn't clear which one, you keep the damned flag in your damned pocket.
If it isn't clear which one, you keep the damned flag in your damned pocket.
Yeah, that was kind of my point...
Yeah, I didn’t have a problem with the call.
However, here, you can see Sills change the angle of his head to look towards the sidelines a moment before impact.
This change, Sills looking away from the quarterback, surely played into the official's decision to throw the flag.
This was not a blatantly bad call as some here are making it out to be.
Ah, no. It was called because Sills ran into the defender, not because of Toney. The DB could have avoided Sills himself, he saw Sills coming as much as Sills saw the DB. Toney was running his route, I think Sills altered his when he saw Jones scramble.
I didn’t like the call at the time, but looking back I can see why it was a penalty
I don't think Sills' job on the play was to pick anyone, nor do I think he did it on purpose, but I understand why the call was made.
That's what some fans seem to be missing - thanks Sy for pointing this out.
The play design itself is begging to be a pick, even if Sills isn't specifically tasked with seeking out Toney's man and getting in his way. Just the route concept alone is going to lead to a likelihood that there's going to be some washout there and one of the receivers will emerge wide open.
The same would occur if the defense found a way to accidentally on purpose interfere with receivers "incidentally." It would get called.
I was disappointed that the play got called back, but I understood why the officials called it.
The refs knew something didn't smell right...
Hear the announcers all the time indicate you are not gonna get that call on the road. The one exception Giants Stadium.
Quote:
That kind of play becomes a slippery slope and teams will run it all game
That's what some fans seem to be missing - thanks Sy for pointing this out.
The play design itself is begging to be a pick, even if Sills isn't specifically tasked with seeking out Toney's man and getting in his way. Just the route concept alone is going to lead to a likelihood that there's going to be some washout there and one of the receivers will emerge wide open.
The same would occur if the defense found a way to accidentally on purpose interfere with receivers "incidentally." It would get called.
I was disappointed that the play got called back, but I understood why the officials called it.
Yep.
Quote:
It’s what Toney did. He ran the DB into sills. Toney knew what he was doing. Sills was called because Toney did it with intent. That’s the way I saw it.
Ah, no. It was called because Sills ran into the defender, not because of Toney. The DB could have avoided Sills himself, he saw Sills coming as much as Sills saw the DB. Toney was running his route, I think Sills altered his when he saw Jones scramble.
Lmao. Yes I’m aware the call was made because the contact was between sills and the DB. sills ran into the defender but sills was totally unaware looking back at the QB. Sills had no intent of setting a pick right there. When he glanced back at the DB it was a split second before contact. Toney saw sills running his route. He was not looking back at the qb. Toney ran the DB into sills intentionally. You can see how Toney ducks out of the way leaving the DB and sills to make contact. To me Toney realized what he was doing but it was worth a shot.