Catch Interference (Non) Penalty

[Seymour]

.....Not sure why you would compare a situation where both teams have equal right to the football to one where it's a penalty if the kicking team touches it first.

So, in actuality, the 1and 9ers committed two penalties on that play, and now I'm really incensed!! :49ersmall: :17:

Exactly. Just as i stated, anyway you look at that play there was a penalty that wasn't added to our field position.

 

[Popeyejones]

In the above situation they both have equal right to the football.

True, but that only applies if they make contact in their path to the football (a la the SB slant).

That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the difference between impeding a player's path to the ball and impeding a ball's path to a player.

We are absolutely 100% in agreement that on a punt a defender is not allowed to make contact with a returner in his path to the ball before the ball gets there, unlike for a DB and a WR.

What we're talking about is a hypothetical situation in which a defender impedes a punts path to a returner in a situation in which (1) the returner has not called for a fair catch, and (2) the defender makes contact with the ball before the returner. Again, it's mostly hypothetical because there's literally no reason for a defender to do this intentionally.

It's actually a penalty to touch the ball first as the punting team (illegal touching). Some may not realize this (I know you do) because the enforcement is either the result of the play if the receiving team grabs it and runs with it, or the spot of the foul (touching) if the receiving team has something bad happen (fumble). Hence, why you see the receiving team streak in and try to snatch it and run after punting team touches but doesn't control it. Nothing bad can happen.

Yeah, illegal touching is a "penalty" but not a penalty that comes with any rewards: if the defending team touches the ball and then recovers it the ball is just downed at the spot of the touch (why we regularly see defenders TRYING to get this "penalty" on punts right at the goal line).

As for the play we're talking about though, just pretending for a second that he didn't touch Lockett's arm before the ball boinked off his head (again, I'd need to go back and watch), absolutely agreed that (1) if the 9ers recover it's an "illegal touch" the ball is dead at the spot of the illegal touch (which is what they called), whereas if the Seahawks recovered it they could have advanced it.

Not sure why you would compare a situation where both teams have equal right to the football to one where it's a penalty if the kicking team touches it first.

Because I was talking about the difference between impeding a player's path to the ball and impeding a ball's path to a player, not a situation in which someone is allowed to get in someone else's way (which is true for DBs and WRs both going for a ball, but not punt returners and the people defending punts). A DL batting down a pass would have been a clearer example of impeding a ball's path to a player rather than the reverse.

So, in actuality, the 1and 9ers committed two penalties on that play, and now I'm really incensed!! :49ersmall: :17:

It would still just be zero or one, as these are subsections of the same rule and penalty (i.e. if you both hook a receiver's arm and cut off his path without making a play on the ball you don't get two pass interference penalties). :lol: :2thumbs:

 

[Sgt Largent]

Because I was talking about the difference between impeding a player's path to the ball and impeding a ball's path to a player, not a situation in which someone is allowed to get in someone else's way (which is true for DBs and WRs both going for a ball, but not punt returners and the people defending punts). A DL batting down a pass would have been a clearer example of impeding a ball's path to a player rather than the reverse.

So, in actuality, the 1and 9ers committed two penalties on that play, and now I'm really incensed!! :49ersmall: :17:

It would still just be zero or one, as these are subsections of the same rule and penalty (i.e. if you both hook a receiver's arm and cut off his path without making a play on the ball you don't get two pass interference penalties). :lol: :2thumbs:

First, Stopping A from getting to B is functionally the same as stopping B from getting to A. You still haven't explained how you could possibly commit your interpretation of the penalty without physical contact. If my position on the field is (or would need to be) rerouted due to an action you take (intentional or otherwise) in order for me to catch the ball, you impeded my path....I mean, what the hell man? How could Lockett catch that ball without running around (rerouted) the opposing player? If Lockett runs through him, he's touched by the kicking team and problem solved. If Lockett would have or had to run around him, this part of the rule handles that. You are trying to use examples where possession is not ceded to the other team. The two things are not similar in any way.

Second, I figured by adding a couple emotes, you would recognize a little levity in the discussion. Guess not.

 

[Seymour]

Only here will you see an argument that goes on and on and contains no real basis.

I think Olive Oil is calling. :roll:

 

[Popeyejones]

First, Stopping A from getting to B is functionally the same as stopping B from getting to A. You still haven't explained how you could possibly commit your interpretation of the penalty without physical contact. If my position on the field is (or would need to be) rerouted due to an action you take (intentional or otherwise) in order for me to catch the ball, you impeded my path....I mean, what the hell man? How could Lockett catch that ball without running around (rerouted) the opposing player? If Lockett runs through him, he's touched by the kicking team and problem solved. If Lockett would have or had to run around him, this part of the rule handles that. You are trying to use examples where possession is not ceded to the other team. The two things are not similar in any way.

Just to be clear, we're talking hypotheticals, not that play, as we'd both need to rewatch what happened on it to talk about it.

I just wanna make it really obvious that I'm not saying it WASN'T a penalty, as the defender could have (a) impeded Lockett's path to the ball, and/or (b) contacted Lockett before touching the ball.

So knowing that we're 100% talking about a hypothetical situation, what I'm saying is that if you're standing at the 20 yard line standing still and waiting to catch a punt and haven't called a fair catch, as long as I don't touch you before I touch the ball, I could hypothetically jump up at the 23 yard line and bat it before you catch it while only incurring an "illegal touching" penalty, which would make the ball dead at the 23 yard line assuming my team recovered the batted ball.

You're standing still so I haven't impeded your path to the ball. Instead, I've impeded the ball's path to you (the same way a DL does when he bats down a pass to a WR).

This just never happens intentionally because:

1) If I'm that close almost every time you're gonna call a fair catch, and if you do, I'm not allowed to do that.
2) Even if I could why would I want to do that, because I just gave your team 3 yards by acting like an idiot.
3) I'd be much better off trying to lay you out and force the fumble.
4) It gives your team the opportunity to advance my batted ball but not my team the opportunity to do anything with it (i.e. illegal touching).

Second, I figured by adding a couple emotes, you would recognize a little levity in the discussion. Guess not.

Yeah, mine were intended to do the same thing. We're just killing time til the end of the day. We're good, man. :2thumbs:

 

[Sgt Largent]

Only here will you see an argument that goes on and on and contains no real basis.

I think Olive Oil is calling. :roll:

The 9ers are bad enough right now that there is really no other way to get into it with Popeye than to argue about his typical Ref apologist stance :3-1:

Popeye, the whole reason for this kick rule-set is to allow the receiving team to take possession of the ball (meaning touch it first) unhindered, fair catch or not, if they so desire. The rule does not say "Path to be NEAR the ball". It says "path to the ball". There is absolutely no purpose to adding verbiage that 1) includes no fair catch signal being given and 2) references no contact is necessary for infraction. In your interpretation, you don't need this verbiage at all, it's a waste of a rule paragraph. Except for contact, there would be no other way to make this statement true.

In your standing still scenario, how does the player "get to the ball" not "near the ball" without out jumping the defender or running around and boxing him out? In each instance, the defender caused me to take an action to get to the ball I otherwise could have caught flat footed. Hence, you just hindered my path to the ball.

In fairness. I'd like to hear the official interpretation of this rule. The fact we can argue about it means it's poorly written like so many other rules that make way too much of the enforcement ambiguous at best. (That or you 9er, me Seahawk, water is wet, sky is blue, no its not, !$#@ you).

 

[Popeyejones]

In fairness. I'd like to hear the official interpretation of this rule. The fact we can argue about it means it's poorly written like so many other rules that make way too much of the enforcement ambiguous at best. (That or you 9er, me Seahawk, water is wet, sky is blue, no its not, !$#@ you).

YES!!! :irishdrinkers:

Good luck to us when we have to start by saying, "hey, is this thing that NEVER HAPPENS and NOBODY SHOULD EVER DO INTENTIONALLY legal or illegal?" :lol:

 

[253hawk]

Yep it was brutal. The refs in the NFL are just awful. The missed facemask call on McKissic and the PI Call on the SF DB on Baldwin were just two of the terrible calls that come to mind.

The facemask was on Lockett with the ref standing about 10' away looking right at it; the same play McKissic was called for the world's softest pick ever. That basically took away a first down, forced a punt, and got SF 3 points on the board before going into halftime.

And I think Beathard had at least 3 intentional grounding throws but was only called for one.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The Officials were pathetic as always. How they don't see that facemask.......oh wait, it's the Seahawks.

 

[Sgt Largent]

Yep it was brutal. The refs in the NFL are just awful. The missed facemask call on McKissic and the PI Call on the SF DB on Baldwin were just two of the terrible calls that come to mind.

The facemask was on Lockett with the ref standing about 10' away looking right at it; the same play McKissic was called for the world's softest pick ever. That basically took away a first down, forced a punt, and got SF 3 points on the board before going into halftime.

And I think Beathard had at least 3 intentional grounding throws but was only called for one.

If I remember correctly, they called him for a pick on a guy that was actually covering him and participating in the contact (which was extrememly minimal) to slow McKissic in his route. All this happens 3 yds from a head snapping facemask in the open field that goes unflagged. LOFL

 

[253hawk]

If I remember correctly, they called him for a pick on a guy that was actually covering him and participating in the contact (which was extrememly minimal) to slow McKissic in his route. All this happens 3 yds from a head snapping facemask in the open field that goes unflagged. LOFL

You're right, I had to go back and re-watch it. They called it a pick because the defense was in man coverage, but the DB was lined up inside forcing him loop around the LB on McKissic to make the play -- a blatant facemask with the ref looking right at it.

https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/BadFemal ... kcoonhound

 

[Popeyejones]

And I think Beathard had at least 3 intentional grounding throws but was only called for one.

Yeah, saw that too.

To be fair though, RW consistently throws more balls away from within the tackle box than any QB I've ever seen. I seriously can't believe I'm the only person who has noticed this.

I think it's just something that they don't call that much.

And seriously, props to RW and the Hawks staff if this is known and intentional, as it decreases sacks and keeps his INT rate down by taking advantage of a penalty that isn't called that much.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

We just call the bad calls "Illegal Seahawking"

 

[hawknation2017]

The obfuscation, hair-splitting, and doubletalk in this thread in hilarious. Good job, Popeye! I needed a laugh.

 

[AubHawk71]

After that phantom false start penalty at the beginning of the game, the flag well thrown after the play was over, no replay from the teevee headz, I knew it was going to be the same old same old.

The fact that 80% of the time a big play happens there's a penalty or 'Catch or no Catch?', and we have to see the super slow mo, and then review, and then to the studio to see what BLANDino and Pizzaria think about it shows how much the NFL injects DRAMA into the games instead of them just letting the boys play.

And part of the Seahawks storyline of:

1) It rains a lot in the Pacific Northwest
2) CLink is loud
3) They throw fish - FISH! - at the market
4) The Seahawks play aggressive and get a lot of penalties
5) Etc.

Means that the Hawks will always get a lot of calls. Because, you know, bad boyz for life.

I've just accepted it. Keeps the blood pressure low on game day.

 

[rossob]

And I think Beathard had at least 3 intentional grounding throws but was only called for one.

Yeah, saw that too.

To be fair though, RW consistently throws more balls away from within the tackle box than any QB I've ever seen. I seriously can't believe I'm the only person who has noticed this.

I think it's just something that they don't call that much.

And seriously, props to RW and the Hawks staff if this is known and intentional, as it decreases sacks and keeps his INT rate down by taking advantage of a penalty that isn't called that much.

Does he? I never noticed that. I only always see him throw out of bounds. But I might just not pay enough attention.

 

[nanomoz]

Ya, catch interference actually occurred twice on that play according to the rule:

1. The Niner contacted the ball before Lockett could. This is just as illegal as
2. The Niner contacted Locket before Locket could get to the ball.

And it still wasn't called. Pure incompetence.

 

[ivotuk]

I couldn't believe the OPI on McKissic, well away from the play, and then a blatant face mask!

At least the announcers called out the refs on the phantom OPI. Guess the refs didn't want us to get a first down, so ignore the personal foul face mask, and invent an OPI. Probably threw the flag, then made it up after.

 

[olyfan63]

I've wondered about that obvious catch interference as well, and the total lack of mention by the announcers and Mike Peerightatcha or whatever his name is, on the replays. It was so blatant and obvious.

All I can figure is that catch interference is a NON-REVIEWABLE call, if it's not called on the field by the refs, the video replay refs can't add it in later. Like PI calls being non-reviewable. So whichever ref was responsible for monitoring and calling that was asleep at the switch. There is a lot going on during a punt for the officiating crew to do; watching the sideline, gunners getting pushed out, etc, watching for holding, watching to make sure the O-Line doesn't leave early, watching for blocks in the back, watching for fair catch signal, etc. After all that, only one set of ref eyeballs has to screw up and miss it for it to not be called. Would've been nice to at least hear it mentioned by announcers as being non-reviewable (my hypothesis, if someone knows different, please share).

Having worked as a basketball ref in a past life, and recalling the mechanics of who had which calls, that's all I can figure, one ref screwed up on his mechanics and/or sneezed or blinked at the wrong time.

 

[Sgt Largent]

I've wondered about that obvious catch interference as well, and the total lack of mention by the announcers and Mike Peerightatcha or whatever his name is, on the replays. It was so blatant and obvious.

All I can figure is that catch interference is a NON-REVIEWABLE call, if it's not called on the field by the refs, the video replay refs can't add it in later. Like PI calls being non-reviewable. So whichever ref was responsible for monitoring and calling that was asleep at the switch. There is a lot going on during a punt for the officiating crew to do; watching the sideline, gunners getting pushed out, etc, watching for holding, watching to make sure the O-Line doesn't leave early, watching for blocks in the back, watching for fair catch signal, etc. After all that, only one set of ref eyeballs has to screw up and miss it for it to not be called. Would've been nice to at least hear it mentioned by announcers as being non-reviewable (my hypothesis, if someone knows different, please share).

Having worked as a basketball ref in a past life, and recalling the mechanics of who had which calls, that's all I can figure, one ref screwed up on his mechanics and/or sneezed or blinked at the wrong time.

You are probably right on this Oly, but in a situation where it's either 9ers ball or a penalty, and it's then deemed the 9ers ball call is wrong, the penalty should be able to be enforced. Either the Seahawks touched it first, or penalty. That condition should be reviewable in my opinion.