Catch Interference (Non) Penalty

Not sure if it was brought up in the gameday thread, but I don't see mention of it in the main forum unless I missed something.

Pertaining to the initially ridiculously called punt muff and 49er possession, how the heck was 15yds not tacked on for blatant catch interference. They bring in Mike P. and he doesn't even mention it.

I was hollering at the TV saying, "Not only is it our damn ball, that's 15 yds you jokers!". Was I so apoplectic I missed the enforcement? Rule posted below in case some wonder about fair catch signaling. It's irrelevant to catch interference.

Rule 10 Opportunity to Catch a Kick, Fair Catch

Section 1 Opportunity to Catch a Kick
INTERFERENCE
Article 1 During a scrimmage kick that crosses the line of scrimmage, or during a free kick, members of
the kicking team are prohibited from interfering with any receiver making an attempt to catch the airborne
kick, or from obstructing or hindering his path to the airborne kick, and regardless of whether any signal
was given.
Item 1: Contact with Receiver. It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or
causes a passive player of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to his touching
the ball.
Item 2: Right of Way. A receiver who is moving toward a kicked ball that is in flight has the right of way.
If opponents obstruct his path to the ball, or cause a passive player of either team to obstruct his path,
it is interference, even if there is no contact, or if he catches the ball in spite of the interference, and
regardless of whether any signal was given.

Penalties:
(a) For interference with the opportunity to make a catch when a prior signal has not been
made: Loss of 15 yards from the spot of the foul, and the offended team is entitled to put the
ball in play by a snap from scrimmage. See 4-8-2-g.
(b) For interfering with a fair catch after a signal: Loss of 15 yards from the spot of the foul. A
fair catch is awarded even if the ball is not caught. See Section 2, Article 4.

It was brought up in GameDay. Hell, I brought it up myself. The coverage guy definitely came in contact with Lockett's hands before the ball came down. He totally blocked the catcher's path to the ball, it bounced off his helmet for god's sake. It's not a pass, the defender does not have a right to the ball if a receiver is lining up for the catch.

Didn't change much in the game, but damn, it sure looked like it was a blown call.

Ok, I was starting to question my sanity. Neither the announcers or Mike Pizzeria (Don't feel like looking up the spelling) said a word. Whew, I'm not crazy....maybe.

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.

sutz":2caadxv8 said:

It was brought up in GameDay. Hell, I brought it up myself. The coverage guy definitely came in contact with Lockett's hands before the ball came down. He totally blocked the catcher's path to the ball, it bounced off his helmet for god's sake. It's not a pass, the defender does not have a right to the ball if a receiver is lining up for the catch.

Didn't change much in the game, but damn, it sure looked like it was a blown call.

Click to expand...

I was yelling the exact same thing! How can that be interference with no penalty yards? Why is Pete not pointing this out on the sidelines? Too many "professionals" not pulling their heads out. :roll:

I was freakin’ too.
Made a thread in GameDay.

I thought it was also strange the we were offended no explanation either.
It’s possible that I missed it while throwing my tantrum, did I?

Would need to see the play again to check if he made contact with Lockett before or after the ball bounced off his helmet.

Whatever it was, I'm thinking that element got lost in the shuffle of trying to figure out in real time if it was a fumble recovered for a TD or not (which I *think* was the call on the field, although I don't know).

My guess -- to be clear, I don't know -- is that when they send a call like that to NY the refs there can adjudicate the accuracy of the call on the field or not, but can't introduce a new penalty that hasn't been called.

So, as watchers we all got the benefit of slow-motion, zoomed-in, HD replay, which means that if he did contact Lockett before the ball hit him that call was definitely missed, but given how close it was, even if it's a blown call, I'm not sure it was a wildly egregious one. IIRC it didn't look like Lockett's path was hindered, as rather, the ball just hit the defender before it got to him while Lockett was waiting for it to come down.

If the defender got some of Lockett's arm before the ball hit him then that of course should be a penalty (he needs to actually contact him -- I don't know why NFL fans think they do but the NFL doesn't have a halo rule).

All in all though, my real surprise on that play is that Lockett didn't fair catch the thing. Of all the possible outcomes of not fair catching that punt I don't think a potentially missed 15 yard penalty was the worst one.

Popeyejones":ewf12med said:

... If the defender got some of Lockett's arm before the ball hit him then that of course should be a penalty (he needs to actually contact him -- I don't know why NFL fans think they do but the NFL doesn't have a halo rule).

All in all though, my real surprise on that play is that Lockett didn't fair catch the thing. Of all the possible outcomes of not fair catching that punt I don't think a potentially missed 15 yard penalty was the worst one.

Click to expand...

There's Popeye, knew you'd be around in no time :2thumbs:

Quote bolded above by me. Reread the rule I posted above. Contact is not required. Unless your stance is that he did not interfere with Lockett's ability to reach behind and over the defenders head to catch the ball, therefore no impedance to the ball?

The "path to the ball" is the ENTIRE path to the ball. Not minus the last four feet. No halo rule necessary. If you stand between me and the ball, and the ball hits you while I'm trying to catch it, you impeded my path to the ball. Period.

With regard to your last statement, nobody cares that you think we should be grateful (It could've been worse?) for the missed call because Lockett MIGHT have fumbled it. Ridiculous.

Lockett was hit before the ball hit his helmet (clearly shown in slow mo replay), and he also did not give Lockett room to make the fair catch. Anyway you look at this there should have been penalty yards that were missed.

Sgt Largent":t0cszu06 said:

Popeyejones":t0cszu06 said:

... If the defender got some of Lockett's arm before the ball hit him then that of course should be a penalty (he needs to actually contact him -- I don't know why NFL fans think they do but the NFL doesn't have a halo rule).

All in all though, my real surprise on that play is that Lockett didn't fair catch the thing. Of all the possible outcomes of not fair catching that punt I don't think a potentially missed 15 yard penalty was the worst one.

Click to expand...

There's Popeye, knew you'd be around in no time :2thumbs:

Quote bolded above by me. Reread the rule I posted above. Contact is not required. Unless your stance is that he did not interfere with Lockett's ability to reach behind and over the defenders head to catch the ball, therefore no impedance to the ball?

The "path to the ball" is the ENTIRE path to the ball. Not minus the last four feet. No halo rule necessary. If you stand between me and the ball, and the ball hits you while I'm trying to catch it, you impeded my path to the ball. Period.

Click to expand...

Now we're debating the meaning of "is" :lol:

I interpreted path to the ball to mean he can't physically block Lockett's body to prevent him from catching it, which doesn't mean that if the ball hits him first without him touching Lockett (and he VERY WELL MIGHT HAVE TOUCHED LOCKETT FIRST) that's not a penalty.

Whatever it is, we're all in agreement (I assume) that a penalty very well could have been called there, and that it happened well after it would have mattered anyway (that they went to NY to get the fumble call right is obviously a good thing, although I guess going to New York to get calls like that correct is also believed by some to be part of the vast officiating conspiracy ).

Seymour":p2njo6pa said:

Lockett was hit before the ball hit his helmet (clearly shown in slow mo replay), and he also did not give Lockett room to make the fair catch. Anyway you look at this there should have been penalty yards that were missed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not denying that at all (again, I haven't gone back and watched the play).

Did Lockett signal for a fair catch? If he did then the defender is not allowed to make contact with the ball until Lockett has had the opportunity to catch it, and that should have been a penalty:

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/faircatch

(Largent, note that here w/ the fair catch rule they include the ball itself in addition to receivers "path to the ball", unlike for non-fair catches).

I don't believe there was a fair catch signal. At least nobody has mentioned it. Fair catch or not, the coverage team is not permitted to block the receiver's path to a ball he is actually trying to catch. The timing is perhaps a bit tight, but the replay clearly showed the cover man hitting Lockett's hands.

sutz":201szb2a said:

I don't believe there was a fair catch signal. At least nobody has mentioned it. Fair catch or not, the coverage team is not permitted to block the receiver's path to a ball he is actually trying to catch. The timing is perhaps a bit tight, but the replay clearly showed the cover man hitting Lockett's hands.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if he makes contact with any part of Lockett before the ball doinks off his helmet there's nothing to talk about: that's a penalty by any definition.

(again tho, the benefit of zoomed in, high def, slow-mo replay makes the definitive call on that thousands of times easier to make).

Popeyejones":11nmeecg said:

sutz":11nmeecg said:

I don't believe there was a fair catch signal. At least nobody has mentioned it. Fair catch or not, the coverage team is not permitted to block the receiver's path to a ball he is actually trying to catch. The timing is perhaps a bit tight, but the replay clearly showed the cover man hitting Lockett's hands.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if he makes contact with any part of Lockett before the ball doinks off his helmet there's nothing to talk about: that's a penalty by any definition.

Click to expand...

I believe I said above, in the end it was kind of meaningless, just another example of refs not getting things right. I'm glad it didn't affect the outcome.

sutz":1y54b1tb said:

I'm glad it didn't affect the outcome.

Click to expand...

Yep. Whatever it was, me too.

FWIW I think it's a good example of why it's good the NFL instituted the rule for all scoring plays being confirmed in NY.

If that exact same play happened a couple years ago and the Hawks were out of challenges that's a VERY BLOWN call that results in a TD for the 9ers.

Amazing they can't see that it was a clear violation of the rule. Yet again, the refs could have massively impacted a game.

Popeyejones":l9o44eud said:

Seymour":l9o44eud said:

Lockett was hit before the ball hit his helmet (clearly shown in slow mo replay), and he also did not give Lockett room to make the fair catch. Anyway you look at this there should have been penalty yards that were missed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not denying that at all (again, I haven't gone back and watched the play).

Did Lockett signal for a fair catch? If he did then the defender is not allowed to make contact with the ball until Lockett has had the opportunity to catch it, and that should have been a penalty:

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/faircatch

(Largent, note that here w/ the fair catch rule they include the ball itself in addition to receivers "path to the ball", unlike for non-fair catches).

Click to expand...

You posted a digest version (unofficial reference) of the rules. Referring to the ball during a fair catch explanation is not in the official rules book (Rule 10) unless I missed it.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/pu ... rCatch.pdf

Second, using your body to physically block the ball that I'm trying to catch is not impeding my path to the ball? So, when your cousin tossed you a turkey leg on Thursday and your other cousin spiked that @#$% out of mid air, that didn't interfere with your ability to catch it? The ball is airborne, considering that "Path to the ball" only relates to being able to move your feet seems a stretch.

Third, Lockett was touched so moot, but if the rule is officially interpreted the way you are trying to interpret it, it doesn't make sense. How would you impede me in any way from catching a ball without touching me or causing some other passive player to touch me then? I would have to intentionally (be forced to) run around you right? You make me change direction and (go around you) to catch it. Lockett would have had to "run around" the offending player to catch that ball. How else could he have caught it?

^^^Yeah, we agree it's moot on several counts.

What you're asking about though is the difference between impeding a player's path to an object and an impeding an objects path to a player.

It's the exact same logic of how a DB can't legally impede a receivers path to a football, but can legally impede a football's path to a receiver.

As I understand it, as long as you don't impede the returner (which he very well might have by contacting him before contacting the ball -- just like pass interference!) you could hypothetically bat the ball out of the air before catches it. It just never happens because (1) the only situation in which it would the returner would call for a fair catch anyway and (2) the ball is down at point of contact anyway, so why even bother when if you're that close you can try to lay the returner out and recover a fumble.

Again though, we agree that this is entirely moot.

HA!!, I'm just glad that we are benefiting from the regular PRO Officials calling the games now, and MISSING the 15 Yard penalty that should have been called...Can you imagine how pissed off everyone would have been if it were those INEPT substitute Officials of a few Years back making the EXACT SAME screw ups?
It's just HUMAN BEING OFFICIALS getting paid big Dollar$, and still MISSING CALLS, and GETTING SHIT WRONG.

Popeyejones":2efpss7r said:

^^^Yeah, we agree it's moot on several counts.

What you're asking about though is the difference between impeding a player's path to an object and an impeding an objects path to a player.

It's the exact same logic of how a DB can't legally impede a receivers path to a football, but can legally impede a football's path to a receiver.

As I understand it, as long as you don't impede the returner (which he very well might have by contacting him before contacting the ball -- just like pass interference!) you could hypothetically bat the ball out of the air before catches it. It just never happens because (1) the only situation in which it would the returner would call for a fair catch anyway and (2) the ball is down at point of contact anyway, so why even bother when if you're that close you can try to lay the returner out and recover a fumble.

Again though, we agree that this is entirely moot.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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: