Is this play legal?

[dolphins4life]

I got this idea from from re-watching this year's Super Bowl.

Line up your receiver one on one with the DB

Have him sprint down the sideline, and then stop suddenly. Have your quarterback throw it to him.

The defender's momentum will cause him to run into the receiver after the receiver's sudden stop.

Bingo.  Pass Interference

[fyo]

If your receiver has the DB beat down the sideline, why not just throw it to your receiver in full stride for the touchdown?

Instead, you suggest throwing it behind the receiver, hoping that the trailing DB doesn't get his head around and makes the easy interception.

[Brian Fein]

If your receiver has the DB beat down the sideline, why not just throw it to your receiver in full stride for the touchdown?

Instead, you suggest throwing it behind the receiver, hoping that the trailing DB doesn't get his head around and makes the easy interception.

^^^ this.  All day.

A pro level DB will see the WR looking for the ball and do the same.  It would likely be an easy pick. 

If he is running fill gear with his head down not paying attention to the receiver, he might get called for PI, but he's a terrible corner.

[dolphins4life]

This is the play I was talking about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adgUi2aeKBc

(Again, I respectfully request that if you don't have anything substantive to add, please do not comment)

I do not think that this should be a penalty.  The pass is horribly underthrown.  He is covering the receiver legally with some incidental hand-fighting.  Then, Kelce stops suddenly.  It is this sudden stop that causes them to run into each other.  If the contact was initiated by the defender, I would agree with the call, but this contact happens because the pass is underthrown and Kelce stops suddenly to make a play on it.  I have seen other calls like this in other games, too.

[fyo]

^ That's just bad coverage by Moore. Kelce has his eyes on the ball and tries to make a play on it, but Moore jumps up and interferes, with no idea where the ball is. That's text-book pass interference, even though plenty of "fans" complained about it (like with any PI that doesn't go their teams' way).

If you allowed this, you could basically remove the back-shoulder fade from the playbook. The defender could just run right through the receiver.

There are plenty of valid complaints to be made about the rules benefiting the offensive, but this isn't one of them. Basically, what you have is player A getting his head around and trying to catch the ball (and the ball not being "uncatchable", as in too far away), while player B doesn't get his head around, doesn't try to make a play on the ball, and through physical contact interferes with player A's attempt to catch the ball.

It doesn't matter if player A is the receiver or the defender, the call is the same. PI.

[Brian Fein]

The call had more to do with the defender not playing the ball, and rather reacting to Kelce's motions of attempting to catch it, than the contact.  Part of defending is trying to play the ball.  This kind of play gets flagged all the time.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Your so called play in the original post bears absolutely no resemblance to the play in the YouTube clip.

[Dave Gray]

In this video example, the guy doesn't turn his head to play the ball.  It's not horribly underthrown.  It hits Kelce in his hands.  The defender makes contact with the receiver that prevents him from making the catch without turning around to play the ball.

It's a pretty standard PI call, as I understand the rules, at least.

[dolphins4life]

^ That's just bad coverage by Moore. Kelce has his eyes on the ball and tries to make a play on it, but Moore jumps up and interferes, with no idea where the ball is. That's text-book pass interference, even though plenty of "fans" complained about it (like with any PI that doesn't go their teams' way).

If you allowed this, you could basically remove the back-shoulder fade from the playbook. The defender could just run right through the receiver.

There are plenty of valid complaints to be made about the rules benefiting the offensive, but this isn't one of them. Basically, what you have is player A getting his head around and trying to catch the ball (and the ball not being "uncatchable", as in too far away), while player B doesn't get his head around, doesn't try to make a play on the ball, and through physical contact interferes with player A's attempt to catch the ball.

It doesn't matter if player A is the receiver or the defender, the call is the same. PI.

No, not necessarily.  I did not say running through the receiver is allowed.  I mean if the contact is due to momentum. 

Running through the receiver is what Robey-Coleman did in the Saints game.

Here is another well-known example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vng4fR8O17I

This flag was picked up, because the pass was deemed uncatchable (Correctly, as human beings cannot teleport themselves through other people. The pass never reached Gronk, so he had no play on it.  If Lester was not there, and the pass reached Gronk and Kuechly, then he would have had a play on it, but I digress).

However, when you watch the coverage, the linebacker is covering Gronk, then, Gronk suddenly stops.  Kuechly's momentum carries him into Gronk. 

The question is, what is a defender supposed to do in that situation?  Unless he can defy the laws of physics, I don't think he has any other option but to run into the receiver. 

[dolphins4life]

In this video example, the guy doesn't turn his head to play the ball.  It's not horribly underthrown.  It hits Kelce in his hands.  The defender makes contact with the receiver that prevents him from making the catch without turning around to play the ball.

It's a pretty standard PI call, as I understand the rules, at least.

I see both players locked up, then Kelce stops suddenly, and the defender jumps to try to disengage and avoid contact.

It is standard, I'm arguing if it should be

It's like rewarding quarterback for throwing an underthrown pass

[fyo]

This flag was picked up, because the pass was deemed uncatchable (Correctly, as human beings cannot teleport themselves through other people. The pass never reached Gronk, so he had no play on it.  If Lester was not there, and the pass reached Gronk and Kuechly, then he would have had a play on it, but I digress).

It was uncatchable. Had it been catchable, i.e. had the ball actually gotten then and not been impacted/caught prior to that, then it would have been PI.

However, when you watch the coverage, the linebacker is covering Gronk, then, Gronk suddenly stops.  Kuechly's momentum carries him into Gronk.

The question is, what is a defender supposed to do in that situation?  Unless he can defy the laws of physics, I don't think he has any other option but to run into the receiver. 

That's a rather specious argument. How about next time I'm in my car and someone ahead of me brakes suddenly, I just tell that to the cops. "My cars momentum simply carried me into the car ahead. He shouldn't have stopped. I can't defy the laws of physics" (or apparently apply the brakes)

I see both players locked up, then Kelce stops suddenly, and the defender jumps to try to disengage and avoid contact.

It is standard, I'm arguing if it should be

It's like rewarding quarterback for throwing an underthrown pass

Have you ever played football? Or even soccer? It's very easy to avoid running into people if you are paying attention, even if you are running faster than they are and *right* behind them. (There are exceptions, particularly with big, heavy players chasing much smaller players, but even there paying attention is usually enough - even if you can't stop, you can shift a few inches to one side.)

The defender in your video isn't jumping to try and disengage and avoid contact. He jumping to try and block a ball he thinks is coming high - that's why his arms are flailing trying to bat it. Poor technique in not getting his head around and not watching the receivers hips.

Look, the receiver will always have an advantage in a 1-on-1 cover situation in that he knows when and in which direction he's cutting. The defender can only react. If you made a rule where the RECEIVER had to take care and not change direction too quickly for the defender to follow, well, I'm sorry, but that would just be stupid.

[dolphins4life]

It was uncatchable. Had it been catchable, i.e. had the ball actually gotten then and not been impacted/caught prior to that, then it would have been PI.

That's a rather specious argument. How about next time I'm in my car and someone ahead of me brakes suddenly, I just tell that to the cops. "My cars momentum simply carried me into the car ahead. He shouldn't have stopped. I can't defy the laws of physics" (or apparently apply the brakes)

Have you ever played football? Or even soccer? It's very easy to avoid running into people if you are paying attention, even if you are running faster than they are and *right* behind them. (There are exceptions, particularly with big, heavy players chasing much smaller players, but even there paying attention is usually enough - even if you can't stop, you can shift a few inches to one side.)

The defender in your video isn't jumping to try and disengage and avoid contact. He jumping to try and block a ball he thinks is coming high - that's why his arms are flailing trying to bat it. Poor technique in not getting his head around and not watching the receivers hips.

Look, the receiver will always have an advantage in a 1-on-1 cover situation in that he knows when and in which direction he's cutting. The defender can only react. If you made a rule where the RECEIVER had to take care and not change direction too quickly for the defender to follow, well, I'm sorry, but that would just be stupid.

Kind of a different scenario, in that you are supposed leave space between you and the car in front of you to enable yourself to stop suddenly   

[fyo]

Kind of a different scenario, in that you are supposed leave space between you and the car in front of you to enable yourself to stop suddenly    

Not really. The rule is that you are responsible for not initiating contact in both scenarios. Your "momentum" argument inverts the responsibility.

Sure, there's a limit to any analogy and the situations are not identical. That was obviously not the point.

The bottom line is that inverting the contact responsibility would effectively make it impossible for a receiver to run his route - and that's what you are suggesting with the momentum argument.

There ARE rules in place for incidental contact ("feet got tangled" etc) in a variety of situations. This WOULD include a situation where a receiver suddenly changes direction (or stops) and the defender is unable to avoid contact, providing NEITHER player is looking for the ball. Section 5, Article 3 of the NFL rules covers this sort of permissible contact.

The rules regarding contact with and by receivers is covered here:

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2019-nfl-rulebook/#section-4-legal-and-illegal-contact-with-eligible-receivers
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2019-nfl-rulebook/#section-5-pass-interference

[Dave Gray]

It is standard, I'm arguing if it should be

I think it's fair and correct to call this example P.I.

The defender is not making a play on the ball, he's making a play on the man.  Therefore the contact on the man matters.  Had the player been playing the ball, you would call the contact incidental, since both players have a right to the ball.

It seems fair and correct.

I'm not even sure that this is a rule anymore, but there was something called Face-guarding where it was a penalty to not turn your head, even if you didn't make contact with the receiver.  ....like, you could have the ball bounce off your back without touching the receiver and get a penalty for the guy having been in your face.  I didn't agree with that rule.

[dolphins4life]

I think it's fair and correct to call this example P.I.

The defender is not making a play on the ball, he's making a play on the man.  Therefore the contact on the man matters.  Had the player been playing the ball, you would call the contact incidental, since both players have a right to the ball.

It seems fair and correct.

I'm not even sure that this is a rule anymore, but there was something called Face-guarding where it was a penalty to not turn your head, even if you didn't make contact with the receiver.  ....like, you could have the ball bounce off your back without touching the receiver and get a penalty for the guy having been in your face.  I didn't agree with that rule.

You are in fact correct.  This came into play during the 2006 AFC title game.

Ellis Hobbs was incorrectly flagged for PI, without contacting Reggie Wayne, which the NFL admitted later was a bad call.