Rams interference?

[Ramhock]

. . . is not called enough.

[CaptainHook]

i understand what you are saying, but he pretty much leveled the receiver while the ball was in the air . . .

[Ramhock]

i understand what you are saying, but he pretty much leveled the receiver while the ball was in the air . . .

 

The WR stopped because the ball was thrown 5 yards behind him.

[bushwacked]

i understand what you are saying, but he pretty much leveled the receiver while the ball was in the air . . .

 

If it was a Colt player and you would be in total agreement.

[Sunday Couch Potatoe]

. . . is not called enough.

Niners had 3 TDs called back by penalties one had to go our way at somepoint

 

I'll take it

Edited November 15, 2010 by Sunday Couch Potatoe

[wiegie]

yep, there is NO way that the 49er's receiver makes that catch

[CaptainHook]

If it was a Colt player and you would be in total agreement.

It appears I have acquired a stalker.

[keggerz]

I was a bit shocked they didn't "pick up" that flag

 

It appears I have acquired a stalker.

maybe, but that doesn't mean he is wrong

[CaptainHook]

sweet. I have groupies.

[Grits and Shins]

The problem is that everybody's "subjective" is different.

[bushwacked]

maybe, but that doesn't mean he is wrong

 

Well, I am technically wrong. If it was a Colt player he would have started the thread.

[CaptainHook]

 

Yeah, I'm always starting threads about every bad call in the Colts games.

[firstandgoal]

Niners had 3 TDs called back by penalties one had to go our way at somepoint

 

I'll take it

 

 

Totally agree!!! I was at the game today and was even looking for the flag at the end of the 4th Q when they scored their final TD before overtime...

[Ramhock]

Did not mean to whine about a Rams call. FOX switched to the game & this was the first play I saw, so maybe we got some calls earlier, I don't know.

 

What I do know is "uncatchable" is not called enough. There are examples every week. Why should an offense be awarded for an errant throw or in this case, a defense penalized for causing the errant throw. These should be reviewed, as they are sometimes 50 yard penalties.

 

On this one, there is no "judgement". If the DB wasn't there, the WR wouldn't even been able to stop & take a step back towards the throw & he would have needed three steps to touch it.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Niners had 3 TDs called back by penalties one had to go our way at somepoint

 

I'll take it

yea, vernon davis almost had an awesome week.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Scooby's Hubby

[Jagwired1129]

I watched the game, it was a tough way to lose for the rams, the ball was clearly thrown behind the wr, the defender was playing tight coverage and when the wr saw that the ball was thrown behind him he stopped to make a play and they collided, if anything the wr caused the contact. it was definitely uncatchable, they need instant replay on calls like this. that was third-down and instantly put 49ers in FG range. I hate when games are decided because of penalties.

[detlef]

Tough call to be sure but I think it is only safe to say the ball was "likely uncatchable", not "certainly uncatchable". And there's the rub. If a DB obstructs the receiver's path to a ball that he has any chance at all of getting to, you absolutely have to throw the flag. Especially if the contact is as severe as it was.

 

I guess I see it this way. The uncatchable call should be made very, very rarely, especially in light of some of the amazing catches we see. If they're going to err, they need to err on the side of assuming the WR is going to get to a ball, not the other way around.

[The Next Generation]

It was one of those situations where the DB did nothing wrong, but it was the proper call.

[Bronco Billy]

Tough call to be sure but I think it is only safe to say the ball was "likely uncatchable", not "certainly uncatchable". And there's the rub. If a DB obstructs the receiver's path to a ball that he has any chance at all of getting to, you absolutely have to throw the flag. Especially if the contact is as severe as it was.

 

I guess I see it this way. The uncatchable call should be made very, very rarely, especially in light of some of the amazing catches we see. If they're going to err, they need to err on the side of assuming the WR is going to get to a ball, not the other way around.

 

This guy knows stuff.

[cre8tiff]

Tough call to be sure but I think it is only safe to say the ball was "likely uncatchable", not "certainly uncatchable". And there's the rub. If a DB obstructs the receiver's path to a ball that he has any chance at all of getting to, you absolutely have to throw the flag. Especially if the contact is as severe as it was.

 

I guess I see it this way. The uncatchable call should be made very, very rarely, especially in light of some of the amazing catches we see. If they're going to err, they need to err on the side of assuming the WR is going to get to a ball, not the other way around.

 

What's to stop the receiver from just stopping and drawing a penalty on any ball thrown in his vicinity? What a way to move the ball down the field!

 

There has to be a bit more judgement there than that. And yes, I think replay should be able to be used on that sort of thing.

[rebdog]

there was this interference call in the Rams' game, and another one in the Houston game on a pass to Andre Johnson on their game-tying drive. One hurt the Rams and helped them lose and the other aided the Texans.

I don't see why a DB has to get out of the way when a ball is thrown behind him and he has position on the WR. Shouldn't the DB have a right to his space? Its like in basketball, you only get called for blocking when you haven't established defensive position.

 

Seems like its a way too easy bailout for QBs and WRs.

[Bronco Billy]

there was this interference call in the Rams' game, and another one in the Houston game on a pass to Andre Johnson on their game-tying drive. One hurt the Rams and helped them lose and the other aided the Texans.

I don't see why a DB has to get out of the way when a ball is thrown behind him and he has position on the WR. Shouldn't the DB have a right to his space? Its like in basketball, you only get called for blocking when you haven't established defensive position.

 

Seems like its a way too easy bailout for QBs and WRs.

 

The DB has a right to his space as long as he is playing the ball and not the reciever. He gets his head around on a back shoulder throw? It's any easy PD and a likely INT. But cover skills being what they are, a lot of DBs like to get contact at the LoS and then track the WR from behind down the field in his path. That's exactly why teams use back shoulder throws. This type of technique place the DB at great risk.

[detlef]

What's to stop the receiver from just stopping and drawing a penalty on any ball thrown in his vicinity? What a way to move the ball down the field!

 

There has to be a bit more judgement there than that. And yes, I think replay should be able to be used on that sort of thing.

Like BB the debbil says, the DB has to actually be looking to make a play on the ball.

[SatchDork]

I watched the game, it was a tough way to lose for the rams, the ball was clearly thrown behind the wr, the defender was playing tight coverage and when the wr saw that the ball was thrown behind him he stopped to make a play and they collided, if anything the wr caused the contact. it was definitely uncatchable, they need instant replay on calls like this. that was third-down and instantly put 49ers in FG range. I hate when games are decided because of penalties.

 

Detlef had good stuff to say about this play, too, but I find myself more on Jagwired's side. On the play, Atogwe is really playing perfect coverage. If it had been a good throw (i.e. leading the receiver), he would have been right in the WR's hip pocket with a good chance to make a play on the ball. But becaue the throw was bad, which Atogwe can't be "expecting," and the receiver hit the brakes, it's interference? And the throw was really bad. I know it's a judgement thing, but I say there's no way the WR gets back to that ball even if Atogwe isn't in the picture.

 

cre8tiff has a good point, too. So you can tell a WR on a fly route "If the throw is a little off, just hit the brakes and let the defender crash into you for the flag?" That wouldn't be a good thing.

 

The refs did discuss the call for quite some time, which indicates it's questionable either way. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the ref instinctively throwing the flag based on the collision and the rest of the crew deciding to back him up. I think any of the three possible results (flag, no flag, or pick up the flag) are justifiable, but I lean a little towards picking up the flag. Also, I think absolutely everything should be challengeable/reviewable, including interference and the "catchability" of a pass.

[detlef]

Detlef had good stuff to say about this play, too, but I find myself more on Jagwired's side. On the play, Atogwe is really playing perfect coverage. If it had been a good throw (i.e. leading the receiver), he would have been right in the WR's hip pocket with a good chance to make a play on the ball. But becaue the throw was bad, which Atogwe can't be "expecting," and the receiver hit the brakes, it's interference? And the throw was really bad. I know it's a judgement thing, but I say there's no way the WR gets back to that ball even if Atogwe isn't in the picture.

 

cre8tiff has a good point, too. So you can tell a WR on a fly route "If the throw is a little off, just hit the brakes and let the defender crash into you for the flag?" That wouldn't be a good thing.

 

The refs did discuss the call for quite some time, which indicates it's questionable either way. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the ref instinctively throwing the flag based on the collision and the rest of the crew deciding to back him up. I think any of the three possible results (flag, no flag, or pick up the flag) are justifiable, but I lean a little towards picking up the flag. Also, I think absolutely everything should be challengeable/reviewable, including interference and the "catchability" of a pass.

So, what's the difference between a WR adjusting to a bad ball and simply running a route that involves a sudden change of direction? It seems as if you guys are implying that if a WR suddenly reverses his field, the DB is allowed to plow into him. What if that is part of the route?