No he isn't dipshit - when the receiver runs directly into DB like that he is blocking (i.e., simulating that it's a run play) - this is an official interpretation:
Burt B at Illini
- Thread starter lowhandicapper
- Start date
No he isn't dipshit - when the receiver runs directly into DB like that he is blocking (i.e., simulating that it's a run play) - this is an official interpretation:
No, we want it called because it is a blatant penalty. The offensive player is not allowed to engage, stop being an idiot.
Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents.
exactly thank you for pulling up the exact rule. The Steelers have been guilty of this exact penalty at least 2 times this year, when the throw is supposed to go behind the line of scrimmage then it is legal. This throw is 5 yars past the line of scrimmage and is the definition of Offensive Pass Interference.
He wasn't blocking as he continues his route after the contact--that's what you're missing. That's why multiple officials on TV last night said it wasn't OPI
It wasn't--you all keep claiming he was blocking. He wasn't technically. Contact is allowed. It is not the offensive players job to avoid opponents. Both are entitled to the space.
What I posted is directly from the rule book. Do you have a lack of reading comprehension. “It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents”
No shit - this guy is such an idiot. He keeps claiming that the Offensive Player is allowed to initiate downfield contact on a forward pass WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR! He is so full of crap it isn't even funny and clearly has no clue about the actual NCAA Rulebook in his efforts to defend scUM and the cheating Referines. Downfield eligible Offensive Receivers are not permitted to intentionally engage a defender while the ball is in the air regardless of whether they are the intended receiver. The downfield contact on that play by scUM WR while the ball is in the air on a Forward Pass (the ball is clearly past the LOS) is a BLATANT Offensive Pass Interference penalty and the fact that it wasn't called on a must have 4th-&-3 play by scUM yet again demonstrates the corruption of the b1g cheater Officials. It is a beyond BLATANT penalty and there is only one explanation for why it was not called - it was ignored to scUM's extreme benefit to help them win the game - IOW, clear cheating by the b1g Officials to help scUM win the game.
Last edited:
You are FULL OF SHIT AS PER USUAL - the offensive downfield receiver is NOT ALLOWED to intentionally engage a defender on a downfield pass while the ball is in the air! You're full of crap - it is a BLATANT Offensive PI penalty, you don't know what you're talking about as per usual.
The rule as you stated says "blocking" it doesn't say engage. Players engage all the time--hand fighting occurs on every play. It's not blatant PI and you likely know that. You literally didn't even read what you posted
God are you a moron - listen you f'ing idiot, the offensive eligible receiver is not allowed to INTENTIONALLY INITIATE CONTACT with a defender on a downfield pass while the ball is in the air BY RULE, you GD moron! You admit that the contact was intentional and while the ball is in the air on a pass that crosses the LOS - the very DEFINITION of Offensive Pass Interference in the NCAA Rulebook and you still keep insisting it isn't a penalty. You are such a GD bloviating troll moron, it isn't even funny.
Here is something you can't make up. A problem with BT refs lost vision does not get reported to Big Ten supervisor of officials or Delany but to Lloyd Carr. Nothing fishy on the BT culture here..
In a suit filed Monday, former Big Ten referee James Filson of Bolingbrook accuses conference Commissioner Jim Delany of firing Filson after the Big Ten was made aware that the ref had been working with only one eye for five years, including an Orange Bowl and another bowl. In the suit, Filson says he lost vision in his right eye in 2000 after "missing a step, falling and hitting his eye on the corner of a table." A prosthetic replacement was put in and Filson kept working. Filson says David Parry, the conference's coordinator of officials, told him to "work hard at recovery and be able to return for the upcoming season" and his subsequent performance reviews were better than "he received in the eight years preceeding the loss of his eye." The suit contends that after a reporter notified Michigan coach Lloyd Carr of Filson's condition, Carr told Delany, who then fired the ref because he "did not have two eyes" and "failed to fulfill the minimum physical requirements," according to the suit.
What are you talking about? He's allowed to run his route. Watch the clip again.
No dumbass, he is NOT ALLOWED to "run his pattern" if his "pattern" is to INTENTIONALLY ENGAGE a defender while the ball is in the air - that is Defensive Pass Interference BY RULE as the downfield contact is being INTENTIONALLY INITIATED by the offensive eligible receiver while the ball is in the air - a textbook PENALTY BY RULE as it is clearly written. Only a dumbass like you could keep arguing that it isn't a penalty when it is BEYOND CLEARLY defined as such in the written rule (this is nearly as good as you scUM dumbasses claiming that Avante's foot clearly being out BY RULE wasn't actually out-of-bounds because that would mean it was an Incomplete Pass and it was called Complete by the cheating b1g Officials???????).
lmao--yes he is. Do you watch football? Pick plays are legal and they happen all the time in the NFL and college football. You keep saying intentionally initiated as though he Michigan DB wasn't at the LOS. You're wrong about this--the officials got the call right
It's not bull--he disengages and pretends to watch run a route--watch the clip posted previously. We all know the design of the play but Michigan was smart in doing that. It's what prevented the call.
The Michigan player straight blocked. That wasn't even a route.
Didn't Warren get flagged for this on a Singleton screen pass?
What are you talking about?
The Illinois player is on the LOS--within a yard. Contact is legal. The receiver creates contact and then disengages pretending to run a route. That happens literally all the time in college and pro football. People only are fixated on it because it was 4th & 3.
Again, the key here is he disengages. They explained this about 20 times last night on ESPN and FOX maybe--I forget what other show I was watching. Officials all agree because the end of the play it wouldn't be called.
So clearly a penalty. He wasn't even making an attempt to run a route, he straight blocks the guy
You're wrong--I can't believe people that watch football as much as people here claim do refuse to watch the last 2 second of the play to see what former officials have all said it wasn't a penalty.
Honestly, I'm done--if you don't want to comprehend the game then don't. Continue to believe that's not a play that happens dozens of times in most games and that it's simply because the Big Ten hates us and caters to Michigan and Ohio State. Whatever excuse you all need.
It clearly was the right call. Numerous former officials have commented on it. You all simply see what you want to see which is crazy given how mad you probably all were with the Charles penalty. Gotta stop the hypocrisy.
Watch at 11:40--Charles never disengages
It clearly was the right call. Numerous former officials have commented on it. You all simply see what you want to see which is crazy given how mad you probably all were with the Charles penalty. Gotta stop the hypocrisy.
Watch at 11:40--Charles never disengages
You're so full of shit - he is INTENTIONALLY ENGAGED for 5 yards AND WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR on a forward pass which makes it OFfensive Pass Interference BY RULE - an Offensive eligible-receiver is not permitted to INTENTIONALLY ENGAGE a defensive player while the ball is in the air on a Forward Pass - it is a Off PI penalty by DEFINITION OF THE RULE as it is written. You repeatedly saying it is legal, is not only laughable, but doesn't make it so you troll dumbass.
So you think Charles was OPI against Minnesota?
I don't
The play was 100% legal and occurs dozens if not hundreds of times each week
Using you logic TEs would get called for OPI constanty
I didn't even look at down and distance to "be fixated on it".
Receivers running routes try to get off contact to run their route. The Michigan player essentially blocked for 5 yards. To me, that's OPI because he created the open route with his movement and it is in no way incidental. It's no different than George running into the Minnesota guy while Brown comes underneath wide open.
It was OPI in '19. It should have been on the play you showed me. Pretending his disengagement makes it legal is garbage. If he was running a route, why didn't he go past the guy covering him? Because he wasn't running a route. It was a block. He didn't look back at the QB to catch a pass. He looked to the player who caught the pass to see if his block worked.
Do you believe the 2019 call was correct?
And the disengage part is huge with this. When you don't disengage it doesn't demonstrate a route was being run when you do it says otherwise
Also, how many times do players not look at the QB when it's a decoy route? We've seen balls thrown to receivers who never looked.
We all know the intent of the play which was the same as Charles in 2019--this was executed better because of the disengagement but neither was OPI
Sorry dude, I sent that clip to every football referee I know in MD and PA, about half of these guys do small college football games as well as the HS ones. 8 for 8 saying its a flag on the offense. These aren't PSU fans either, all but one are MD or Pitt fans.
Dumbass, he didn't "disengage" while the ball was in the air - he intentionally initiated engagement and intentionally stayed engaged for 5 yards down the field WHILE THE BALL WAS IN THE AIR - that is the DEFINITION OF OFFENSIVE PI in the rulebook and it is a BEYOND OBVIOUS penalty. The WR is not allowed to intentionally engage the defender and intentionally stay engaged for 5 yards down the field the entire time the BALL IS IN THE AIR - that is not just illegal, it's BLATANTLY ILLEGAL. You don't know what you're talking about dumbass - as per usual.
He did disengage--watch the last few seconds of the clip provided or listen to the former officials that have discussed it but continue thinking you're literate and know what you're reading
I didn't like it at the time, but yes, the '19 play was OPI, primarily because George could have turned left or right and shielded Brown from the defense without engaging.
Decoy routes don't tend to happen play side within 3 yards of the catch.
I really can't even credit play design here because this will get called 99% of the time. Yes, absolutely, Michigan benefit from the name on their jersey.
Penn State and Illinois should run this route no less than 3 times each in week 13. DARE the refs to throw a flag. ALERT them ahead of time that you are going to run it.
Then we disagree on what is OPI
That doesn't get called 99% of the time. Watch the Rams or Bama.
If they call it it's the wrong call
Here is the rule.
---
ARTICLE 8. a. During a down in which a legal forward pass crosses the neutral
zone, illegal contact by Team A and Team B players is prohibited from the
time the ball is snapped until it is touched by any player or an official (A.R.
7-3-8-II).
b. Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the
neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward
pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the
responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents. It is not
offensive pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-IV, V, X, XV and XVI):
1. When, after the snap, a Team A ineligible player immediately charges
and contacts an opponent at a point not more than one yard beyond
the neutral zone and maintains the contact for no more than three
yards beyond the neutral zone. (A.R. 7-3-10-II)
2. When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and
bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of
either team have equal rights to the ball (A.R. 7-3-8-IX).
3. When the pass is in flight and two or more eligible players are in the
area where they might receive or intercept the pass and an offensive
player in that area impedes an opponent, and the pass is not catchable.
---
Sounds more like you disagree with the rule than with me.
Once the ball crossed the line of scrimmage, the contact was completely illegal. It's on the Michigan player to get around the defender to run his route.
But the defender was within a yard of the line of scrimmage---that's where it doesn't fit
The defender can line up wherever. What does that matter? I'm not following what you are arguing with regard to the rule?
Press coverage is legal. Offensive players blocking beyond the LoS when the ball crosses the LoS is illegal until a reception is made.
1. When, after the snap, a Team A ineligible player immediately charges
and contacts an opponent at a point not more than one yard beyond
the neutral zone and maintains the contact for no more than three
yards beyond the neutral zone.
It wasn't more than a yard beyond the line of scrimmage--contact is legal there. If the defender was further off the ball then he can't do that but he wasn't
INELIGIBLE is the key word there. That's in there for RPOs where offensive lineman, INELIGIBLE receivers, are allowed to block up to 3 yards down field.
You are talking about an ELIGIBLE receiver blocking from 1 yard off the LoS until he is 5 yards off the LoS (5>3).
Fair but the eligible receivers are also allowed to have contact within that first yard. Same reason defenders can bump and run. Literally the concept that the receiver can't make contact means if the defense plays bump and run the receiver literally can't do anything if he's directly across from him.
And it wasn't deemed that the receiver was blocking because at the end he demonstrates a route. I understand you hadn't seen the play prior so you didn't watch former officials explain that countless times last night--many here did and still refuse to acknowledge it.
Similar threads
