19-0?

[ugarte]

[quote fytuv][quote ugarte] I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.[/quote]

Well, I'd call it an attempt to draw a stalemate -- you can't catch it, but you're not letting him catch it either.  [/quote]
If you flail wildly and hit the ball, they aren't going to flag you for interference - but if you don't hit the ball and do crash into the player without even bothering to look for the ball, you might as well have just tackled him before the pass was thrown.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote krose][quote Jim Hyla]Most, or at least many, of the rules we deal with in sports, and life, are contrived. There are contrived reasons for icing and offsides in our sport.[/quote]
I actually disagree with this assessment. They are very well-defined rules (the "could have gotten it" excuse for calling off icing notwithstanding) that don't involve ref judgment.  It's the judgment call that I really take issue with, not the additional restriction.

Kyle[/quote]

Not surprised that you disagree. My point is that most rules in sports are contrived. Here's a definition from The Free Dictionary.

Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural

I think most things like offsides and icing fall into that category. The difference is in degree and the eye of the beholder. We are just different beholders.:-)

[Jordan 04]

[quote ftyuv]  

Anyway, as hard as the Pats' loss was for me, I have to agree that Belichick's challenge on that too-many-men call was kinda dick.[/quote]

I thought it was one of the few times he and his staff did something right.

Nothing dick at all about challenging there.

[Chris '03]

[quote ugarte][quote fytuv][quote ugarte] I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.[/quote]

Well, I'd call it an attempt to draw a stalemate -- you can't catch it, but you're not letting him catch it either.  [/quote]
If you flail wildly and hit the ball, they aren't going to flag you for interference - but if you don't hit the ball and do crash into the player without even bothering to look for the ball, you might as well have just tackled him before the pass was thrown.[/quote]

Except that if you tackle him before the pass is thrown it's illegal contact or holding (5 yards) not pass interference (spot foul).

[ugarte]

[quote Chris '03][quote ugarte][quote fytuv][quote ugarte] I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.[/quote]

Well, I'd call it an attempt to draw a stalemate -- you can't catch it, but you're not letting him catch it either.  [/quote]
If you flail wildly and hit the ball, they aren't going to flag you for interference - but if you don't hit the ball and do crash into the player without even bothering to look for the ball, you might as well have just tackled him before the pass was thrown.[/quote]

Except that if you tackle him before the pass is thrown it's illegal contact or holding (5 yards) not pass interference (spot foul).[/quote]

True, as far as my poorly worded analogy goes, but the distinction in the penalties makes sense. If the CB tackles the WR before the ball is in the air, the ref has no grounds to determine that the play was going to go towards that player, or that the quarterback could get it to him even if it was. The penalty is designed to prevent general route disruption. PI is a spot foul because the action has advanced far enough to determine the extent of the offense by the defender. Sometimes the penalty is a windfall, sometimes - when a defender interferes with a receiver that might have had room to run after the catch - it isn't harsh enough.

I prefer to complain about behind-the-returner spot-of-the-foul penalties on kick returns.

[Josh '99]

[quote ugarte][quote ftyuv]I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too.  What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it?  They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.[/quote]
Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.[/quote]Of course, as you point out, face guarding is legal, but that isn't a play at the ball but rather an attempt to disrupt the receiver from catching the ball as well.

[ugarte]

[quote Josh '99][quote ugarte][quote ftyuv]I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too.  What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it?  They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.[/quote]
Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.[/quote]Of course, as you point out, face guarding is legal, but that isn't a play at the ball but rather an attempt to disrupt the receiver from catching the ball as well.[/quote]
The NFL draws the line at contact, reasonably IMO, in much the same way that you can screen the goalie but not bump him.

[Josh '99]

[quote ugarte][quote Josh '99][quote ugarte][quote ftyuv]I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too.  What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it?  They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.[/quote]
Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.[/quote]Of course, as you point out, face guarding is legal, but that isn't a play at the ball but rather an attempt to disrupt the receiver from catching the ball as well.[/quote]
The NFL draws the line at contact, reasonably IMO, in much the same way that you can screen the goalie but not bump him.[/quote]Makes sense to me - I'm not saying it's a bad rule, I'm just saying that there's definitely a line between certain TYPES of "disrupting the receiver".

[Beeeej]

For those who never got to see the Amazon listing before it came down:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mhaithaca/2241400911/sizes/o/

[Tom Lento]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/patriots_season_perfect_for_rest