Question on "eye in the sky"

[Einstein]

3 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

Ball was in the air when contact was made, so that's where the penalty goes for PI.  Illegal contact is for when the ball is still in the QB's hands.  The call and placement was correct by rule.

 

Perhaps that is the distinction. Ball in air. I don’t recall when he threw it.

 

Edit; But then again, PI is not called when first contact is made. PI - by rule - can only be called when the receivers ability to catch the ball is significantly hindered. At the 5 yard line, the ball is uncatchable at that point. 

 

.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Einstein

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

I’m not so certain that the Diggs spot was correct.

 

While the defender did indeed make first made contact with Diggs at the 5 yard line, the ball was no where near Diggs at this time. Because the ball was no where within Diggs reasonable catch radius, the call would have had to be illegal contact if they believe the foul occurred at the 5 yard line. This is where the “not catchable” rule comes into play for PI.

 

For pass interference to be eligible, the defender must hinder the receivers ability to physically catch the pass (section 5, article 1). The defender physically hindered Diggs ability to catch pass in the endzone, and therefore if PI is to be called, the ball should be placed at the 1.

 

There is no spot penalty for illegal contact - it’s only 5 yards and a first down.

 

I think PI isn't "ball nearby" it's "ball in the air".

[Not at the table Karlos]

2 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

I’m not so certain that the Diggs spot was correct.

 

While the defender did indeed make first made contact with Diggs at the 5 yard line, the ball was no where near Diggs at this time. Because the ball was no where within Diggs reasonable catch radius, the call would have had to be illegal contact if they believe the foul occurred at the 5 yard line. This is where the “not catchable” rule comes into play for PI.

 

For pass interference to be eligible, the defender must hinder the receivers ability to physically catch the pass (section 5, article 1). The defender physically hindered Diggs ability to catch pass in the endzone, and therefore if PI is to be called, the ball should be placed at the 1.

 

There is no spot penalty for illegal contact - it’s only 5 yards and a first down.

If the ball is in the air it's PI. Could be an inch or a mile. It doesn't matter the distance away. 

[1ManRaid]

55 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Perhaps that is the distinction. Ball in air. I don’t recall when he threw it.

 

Edit; But then again, PI is not called when first contact is made. PI - by rule - can only be called when the receivers ability to catch the ball is significantly hindered. At the 5 yard line, the ball is uncatchable at that point. 

 

.

 

That's not how "uncatchable" works.  It was only uncatchable by virtue of the foul from the defender.  You only rule uncatchable if the receiver wouldn't have had a reasonable ability to make a play on the ball even if he wasn't interfered with, such as the ball being thrown 5 yards out of bounds.

[Utah John]

The thing about technology like the eye in the sky is that it only helps if it's used properly and consistently.

 

You can buy a fancy new vacuum cleaner but your floors will stay dirty unless you use it.

[K-9]

NFL refereeing is BY FAR the most inconsistent in all of sports and that’s saying something given what we all witness in basketball and hockey. The league should be embarrassed. 

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

That's not how "uncatchable" works.  It was only uncatchable by virtue of the foul from the defender.  You only rule uncatchable if the receiver wouldn't have had a reasonable ability to make a play on the ball even if he wasn't interfered with, such as the ball being thrown 5 yards out of bounds.

Do you have any citation in the rule book to back this up?

 

[1ManRaid]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

Do you have any citation in the rule book to back this up?

 

 

Do you?

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

Do you have any citation in the rule book to back this up?

 

 

I don't care about citations, but after reading this thread about 10 other posters agree with 1ManRaid and have tried to explain it and correct you, but to no avail.

 

Face it, you're no Einstein!!

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

Do you?

 

Yes. I listed them.

[1ManRaid]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

Yes. I listed them.

 

No, you only posted a general rule about PI, and then gave your own incorrect interpretation of it to shoehorn in why you think the rule was applied incorrectly.  That's not listing them, it's a single reference.

 

For the record, the initial hampering of Diggs' ability to catch the ball occurred at the 5 yard line, not in the end zone.  That's why it was marked at the 5.  You for some reason keep arguing the infraction at the 5 didn't count because it wasn't closer to where the ball ended up which is irrelevant.

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

No, you only posted a general rule about PI, and then gave your own incorrect interpretation

 

I love to learn and i’m always open to being incorrect and correcting myself. Which is why I asked, and ask again, can you cite somewhere in the rule book that describes an uncatchable pass in the same manner that you do?