Officiating in the Ravens game

[Panama]

The only odd thing I had with all the PI calls was where the ball was placed.

The ball was placed where the fouls occurred. A lot of people assume that the PI was called on contact in the endzone, but those people are assuming incorrectly. If those had been the calls, I would be furious, too, because the contact in the endzone was not PI. However, in both cases, the receiver was interfered with before reaching the endzone while the ball was in the air. Each time, the balls was correctly placed at the spot of the foul.

[madcaplaughs]

(1) I could go either way on all the PIs. There was definitely contact on the plays while the ball was in the air, and so I don't think the PI calls were totally bullshit. And the refs were consistent both ways on that. I think what a lot of people are missing is that (on at least the 2 PI calls against Wright that I can remember), the illegal contact did not occur in the endzone where the ball reached the receiver, but several yards before that, before the camera focused on the receiver and defender. So, my reaction during the game was to shout, "Bullshit!" on the initial call, then say, "Oh, right, that was interference," when seeing the replay.

(2) The PI at the end of the game was the most obvious call of the bunch, I thought. Floyd was attempting to catch the pass and the DB arm-barred him. I'd have thrown the flag every time on that.

(3) The non-call on the hit to Malcom's head was a correct non-call. If the defender was attempting to tackle or hit Malcom, that's a 15-yard penalty for unnecessary roughness. However, the defender was not hitting Floyd; the defender was playing the ball and the contact was incidental. I hated the non-call, but it was absolutely correct in accordance to the rules.

(4) We don't have a player named Malcolm Floyd. We have Malcom Floyd. Malcolm is Malcom's older brother.

Thanks Panama - Maybe I have to take a closer look. I've given myself 40 lashes for the misspelling of Malcom

[Mister Hoarse]

As Panama would say "You're welcolm".

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

I think the refs were generally bad. Some of the calls against Baltimore were pretty bad as well as some of those called on us.

[Panamamike]

I agree. that crew blows. Honestly, with the weekly grading, it is beyond comprehension how some of these guys till have a job. It's like trying to fire a Teamster.

it reminds me. There is an umpire in baseball. His strike zone is a friggin' postage stamp. the only good thing about him is that he is almost always good for betting the over when he is behind the plate.

[Mister Hoarse]

I agree. that crew blows. Honestly, with the weekly grading, it is beyond comprehension how some of these guys till have a job. It's like trying to fire a Teamster.

it reminds me. There is an umpire in baseball. His strike zone is a friggin' postage stamp. the only good thing about him is that he is almost always good for betting the over when he is behind the plate.

Watch them all work in the postseason.

[BlazingBolt]

(3) The non-call on the hit to Malcom's head was a correct non-call. If the defender was attempting to tackle or hit Malcom, that's a 15-yard penalty for unnecessary roughness. However, the defender was not hitting Floyd; the defender was playing the ball and the contact was incidental. I hated the non-call, but it was absolutely correct in accordance to the rules.

I am not trying to complain that it should have been called but after pondering it I seriously doubt that intent is in any way a part of the criteria as to whether or not a hit on a defenseless receiver is a foul. You either hit him or you don't, I doubt it technically matters why you hit him.

[Sec-E4]

Thanks Panama - Maybe I have to take a closer look. I've given myself 40 lashes for the misspelling of Malcom

Doesn't count unless you used a switch

[Panama]

I am not trying to complain that it should have been called but after pondering it I seriously doubt that intent is in any way a part of the criteria as to whether or not a hit on a defenseless receiver is a foul. You either hit him or you don't, I doubt it technically matters why you hit him.

It's not about the intent. It's about what the action is. Let's look at two other situations for comparison's sake:

Scenario 1: Deep ball thrown downfield, WR and CB are running stride for stride, and both have a shot at the pass. However, 10 yards short of where the ball eventually lands, their feet get tangled up and they fall in a heap. You can argue with the ref all you want, but he's not going to throw that flag for pass interference because the contact is incidental. Neither player impeded the other to gain an advantage; it's just sheer dumb luck they knocked each other out of the play.

Scenario 2: A punt, and the full rush is on. As the punter gets the ball away, a defender goes crashing into his legs. Dangerous situation, punter could get hurt, should be roughing the kicker, right? Except that clearly a blocker had shoved the defender in the back, and the added momentum to the now out-of-control player caused the collision. Again, no flag gets thrown because the collision was an incidental result of the block in the back, not an attempted block that was timed or aimed poorly. The defender is not roughing the kicker, he's getting blocked into him. (No flag for block in the back, either, because block in the back is not illegal there.)

Now, back to our scenario: Both Malcom and the defender are entitled to that pass. The defender is not hitting Malcom, he's fielding a pass. If the defender had been tackling or hitting Malcom, or was out of position and had been trying to break up the pass, then that is absolutely a penalty for hitting a defenseless receiver. However, the defender actually has established better position than Malcom and is attempting to catch the ball. At that point, the defender is actually the receiver and Malcom the defender. In fact, if Malcom had then hit the defender with his shoulder or helmet in the area of the chest, shoulders, or head, one could legitimately argue that Malcom would get penalized. However, in our play, Malcom just happened to be in the wrong place, as the punter in Scenario 2 or the players in Scenario 2. This isn't about intent, as in, "I meant to hit him low but hit him high instead," as you're right that in that case intent does not matter. But the defender wasn't hitting him at all. There was contact, major contact, but it was completely incidental, as the action that caused the collision wasn't an attempted hit that went awry but an attempted reception.

Like I think I said, I was initially pissed off about the non-call, but when I saw the replay it was clear as day: the refs got that one right, spot on.

[Wheels]

I think the distinction is that the defender became a receiver with a legitimate shot at catching the pass. It's part of intent only because the ref interpreted the defenders actions as attempting to catch the ball, not lay a hit. I will say that it kinda blows, because they pretty much always throw the flag on a high hit like that, defender's intentions be damned. Weddle didn't intend to knock Flacco down either, he inadvertently tripped Flacco.

[BlazingBolt]

If a defender jumps in to the air and delivers a blow to the head of a receiver with his shoulder I don't see how technically the rule is a foul or not based on whether or not the defender was intending to hit the receiver or if he was intending to try and catch the ball.

I have no issue with the foul not being called for exactly the reasons Fouts and Panama make. I am simply speculating that if you look up the actual rule for when that penalty is called I do not believe there is an exception where hitting the receiver like that is fine as long as you were going for the ball and not trying to hit him. I understand a defender has a right to go for the ball, but he can not go through the offensive player to get it.

I understand that intent is often part of a rule, such as when players inadvertently get their feet tangles there is no foul. If the defender intentionally tangles feet it would be interference.

But there is also rules such as intentional grounding where intent is completely irrelevant. If a QB throws a hot route to avoid a blitz and the receiver runs the wrong route and is not in the area it is still grounding regardless.

As far as launching yourself in to the air and making contact to the head of a defenseless receiver I doubt the technical wording of the rule allows the flag to be picked based on what the defender was trying to do when he launched and made contact. I don't know where to look up the actual wording in the rule book, I am just guessing.

[Panama]

If a defender jumps in to the air and delivers a blow to the head of a receiver with his shoulder I don't see how technically the rule is a foul or not based on whether or not the defender was intending to hit the receiver or if he was intending to try and catch the ball.

I have no issue with the foul not being called for exactly the reasons Fouts and Panama make. I am simply speculating that if you look up the actual rule for when that penalty is called I do not believe there is an exception where hitting the receiver like that is fine as long as you were going for the ball and not trying to hit him. I understand a defender has a right to go for the ball, but he can not go through the offensive player to get it.

I understand that intent is often part of a rule, such as when players inadvertently get their feet tangles there is no foul. If the defender intentionally tangles feet it would be interference.

But there is also rules such as intentional grounding where intent is completely irrelevant. If a QB throws a hot route to avoid a blitz and the receiver runs the wrong route and is not in the area it is still grounding regardless.

As far as launching yourself in to the air and making contact to the head of a defenseless receiver I doubt the technical wording of the rule allows the flag to be picked based on what the defender was trying to do when he launched and made contact. I don't know where to look up the actual wording in the rule book, I am just guessing.

It's semantics. Colliding with someone is not the same as hitting them. The very idea of hitting carries the idea of intent. And when attempting to hit a receiver, it doesn't matter if you didn't mean to hit him in the shoulder, neck, or head area: such a hit is a penalty. However, if you are attempting a reception, you are by definition not attempting a hit, and the rule does not apply. I know a lot of people hate semantic arguments, but that's what we've got here. It's not a penalty because the collision wasn't a hit, it was incidental contact during an attempted reception.