Video of the Pass Interference

[BleedBlueGold]

Whats funny is that a lot of the media, specifically on CFB daily, yesterday was saying at how egregious the penalty on Procise was as he was blocking Ramsey into the end zone. No mention of him being held and no mention of the 3 yard rule. Insanely bad coverage of this play by big media for the most part.

No different than any other lazy reporting that happens on a daily basis.

 

[phork]

Whats funny is that a lot of the media, specifically on CFB daily, yesterday was saying at how egregious the penalty on Procise was as he was blocking Ramsey into the end zone. No mention of him being held and no mention of the 3 yard rule. Insanely bad coverage of this play by big media for the most part.

And no mention that the flag wasn't on Procise.

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

I concur with that. I think there is a case to be made for throwing the flag on Fuller, but there is no excuse for throwing it on Prosise.

Serious question. Why do you believe there is a case to be made for throwing the flag on Fuller. My counter argument being a few things:
1. From the corner endzone view you can clearly see fuller start his route outside, plant his foot and break inside. To me this indicates he was running a route otherwise he would have gone directly into the block. If FSU had run the proper coverage, Darby would have covered the flat not jumped inside with Fuller. So by Fuller planting his foot and cutting his route back inside, which he did BEFORE Darby made the move to jump inside and cut him off, Fuller ran the risk of Darby not going with him, and instead stepping up in the flat. If his intent was to block, again he would not have started outside then changed direction, he would have gone right at Darby and not run the risk of Darby not following him back inside. FSU had run this coverage previously in the game, but in that instance, I don't believe Fuller was going to assume the same without even making himself an option on the pass if Darby doesn't jump back inside and instead covers the flat.
2. Darby jumps the route inside, and literally as soon as Fuller changes direction, Darby jumps the route to initiate the contact. I know your argument will be about how it is the offensive player's responsibility to avoid this contact, but there is literally no way for Fuller to avoid this contact as it occurred literally one step after he made his cut and Darby broke hard...if the ball had been thrown to fuller it surely would have been DEFENSIVE interference as Darby made contact with fuller and interrupted his route with contact that would not be considered incidental.
3. While Prosise does not, Fuller DOES get his head around.
4. As was mentioned in a previous posts, or maybe in another thread, there is no conceivable way for the official who threw the flag to have been able to identify where Corey Robinson was at the moment he made the decision to begin reaching in his pocked for the flag. The ball had barely come out yet, and Robinson was MAYBE a yard beyond the LOS at that point...while the official was back under the goalpost with a horrible angle, and looking through traffic.

I get how you feel about the play, the call, and fan reaction to the call, but there is more than enough reason/justification for people to feel how they do. I really want to understand your argument, particularly if you could explain what you saw as it relates to the views available from the goal line as well as the back corner view.

 

[Luckylucci]

And no mention that the flag wasn't on Procise.

Well not to get into too much but the chain of events are as followed. The penalty on the field was called on Fuller. Herbstreit announces it on the broadcast as being on Procise. ACC reaffirms to Kelly on Sunday that the call was on Fuller. The media can't stop talking about how Procise was "blocking" into the endzone, which isn't illegal within 3 yards, and yesterday afternoon it breaks that the ACC has yet again changed the ruling to penalize Procise.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Well not to get into too much but the chain of events are as followed. The penalty on the field was called on Fuller. Herbstreit announces it on the broadcast as being on Procise. ACC reaffirms to Kelly on Sunday that the call was on Fuller. The media can't stop talking about how Procise was "blocking" into the endzone, which isn't illegal within 3 yards, and yesterday afternoon it breaks that the ACC has yet again changed the ruling to penalize Procise.

And more importantly, the ACC has admitted that it failed to call Unsportsmanlike Conduct on FSU when PJ Williams removed his helmet after the play, which would have given us 1st and goal from the FSU 9 with 12s remaining; enough time for at least 2, maybe even 3 shots at the endzone.

 

[Luckylucci]

And more importantly, the ACC has admitted that it failed to call Unsportsmanlike Conduct on FSU when PJ Williams removed his helmet after the play, which would have given us 1st and goal from the FSU 9 with 12s remaining; enough time for at least 2, maybe even 3 shots at the endzone.

Correct, them waffling on this like they have is further confirmation that they made the wrong call. If it was so obvious then there would've been some consistency throughout the last couple of days. I feel fully vindicated of what I believed this whole time. However, I would rather have the victory

 

[yankeeND]

And more importantly, the ACC has admitted that it failed to call Unsportsmanlike Conduct on FSU when PJ Williams removed his helmet after the play, which would have given us 1st and goal from the FSU 9 with 12s remaining; enough time for at least 2, maybe even 3 shots at the endzone.

This is one of the all time fuck ups in officiating that went against us. Still, I can not get over how all the team played overall! They finished that game and aged their asses off for 60 minutes. I hate the loss, don't get me wrong, but I have this feeling it will light a fire that makes them better in the end. The rest of this year and next year should be very, very fun to watch!

 

[Emcee77]

Well not to get into too much but the chain of events are as followed. The penalty on the field was called on Fuller. Herbstreit announces it on the broadcast as being on Procise. ACC reaffirms to Kelly on Sunday that the call was on Fuller. The media can't stop talking about how Procise was "blocking" into the endzone, which isn't illegal within 3 yards, and yesterday afternoon it breaks that the ACC has yet again changed the ruling to penalize Procise.

It did? All I saw is that the written record had the call on Prosise -- but the ref clearly announced #7, and I don't know which controls, but I would think the call on the field would be authoritative -- and the ACC Director of Officiating "explained" the call by merely recapitulating the rule, which was less than helpful.

Was there something else I missed? If so, can someone link me to it?

 

[kmoose]

Serious question. Why do you believe there is a case to be made for throwing the flag on Fuller. My counter argument being a few things:
1. From the corner endzone view you can clearly see fuller start his route outside, plant his foot and break inside. To me this indicates he was running a route otherwise he would have gone directly into the block. If FSU had run the proper coverage, Darby would have covered the flat not jumped inside with Fuller. So by Fuller planting his foot and cutting his route back inside, which he did BEFORE Darby made the move to jump inside and cut him off, Fuller ran the risk of Darby not going with him, and instead stepping up in the flat. If his intent was to block, again he would not have started outside then changed direction, he would have gone right at Darby and not run the risk of Darby not following him back inside. FSU had run this coverage previously in the game, but in that instance, I don't believe Fuller was going to assume the same without even making himself an option on the pass if Darby doesn't jump back inside and instead covers the flat.
2. Darby jumps the route inside, and literally as soon as Fuller changes direction, Darby jumps the route to initiate the contact. I know your argument will be about how it is the offensive player's responsibility to avoid this contact, but there is literally no way for Fuller to avoid this contact as it occurred literally one step after he made his cut and Darby broke hard...if the ball had been thrown to fuller it surely would have been DEFENSIVE interference as Darby made contact with fuller and interrupted his route with contact that would not be considered incidental.
3. While Prosise does not, Fuller DOES get his head around.
4. As was mentioned in a previous posts, or maybe in another thread, there is no conceivable way for the official who threw the flag to have been able to identify where Corey Robinson was at the moment he made the decision to begin reaching in his pocked for the flag. The ball had barely come out yet, and Robinson was MAYBE a yard beyond the LOS at that point...while the official was back under the goalpost with a horrible angle, and looking through traffic.

I get how you feel about the play, the call, and fan reaction to the call, but there is more than enough reason/justification for people to feel how they do. I really want to understand your argument, particularly if you could explain what you saw as it relates to the views available from the goal line as well as the back corner view.

The rule states that the Offensive player has to avoid contact. Now, I don't have any problem with Fuller's initial contact, as he is making a cut and Darby jumps in front of him. In fact, you often see WRs run rub plays the exact same way, and put their hands up in the air, to show that they are "not trying to continue the contact/impede the defensive player"... We all know they are, but that is how they sell it. They slow down, throw their hands in the hair, and keep their body between the defender and the intended receiver. In Fuller's case, after the initial contact, he continued to try to drive through Darby to complete his route. By rule, he did NOT attempt to avoid contact. He actually prolonged the contact. Whether or not it should be called at that point of the game is one discussion. Whether or not it meets the criteria for offensive pass interference is another. I think that Fuller trying to drive through Darby, instead of trying to move around him or just throwing his hands up and continuing to shield Darby, is enough to qualify as Offensive Pass Interference. That's completely different from Prosise trying to drive through his man, as Prosise was still within the zone where contact is permitted. One thing that the rule is ambiguous about, is whether or not the defender has to make a move toward the intended receiver, in order to be considered to have been impeded.

I'm getting ready to board a flight, so that's all I've got for now.

 

[Luckylucci]

https://m.facebook.com/Sportsbeat960?_rdr

Here's a link that a poster at BGI posted. Apparently the ACC has switched the call to Procise and admits to missin the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. This is insanely convenient. Let the media watch the replay, decide which part of the play they view as the most agregious, and then decide that was what was called. Lastly I love that "aw shucks" we missed that other call. They are admitting that it should've been 1st and goal from the 9 with 13 seconds on the clock.

Here ya go Emcee

 

[NDohio]

It did? All I saw is that the written record had the call on Prosise -- but the ref clearly announced #7, and I don't know which controls, but I would think the call on the field would be authoritative -- and the ACC Director of Officiating "explained" the call by merely recapitulating the rule, which was less than helpful.

Was there something else I missed? If so, can someone link me to it?

http://www.theacc.com/#!/GameCenter/53fcc88be4b0e17998c230aa


00:13 GOLSON, Everett sideline pass complete to ROBINSON, Corey for 2 yards to the FS0, clock 00:13, PENALTY ND pass interference (PROSISE, CJ) 16 yards to the FS18, NO PLAY, clock 00:13.

 

[Guest]

The rule states that the Offensive player has to avoid contact. Now, I don't have any problem with Fuller's initial contact, as he is making a cut and Darby jumps in front of him. In fact, you often see WRs run rub plays the exact same way, and put their hands up in the air, to show that they are "not trying to continue the contact/impede the defensive player"... We all know they are, but that is how they sell it. They slow down, throw their hands in the hair, and keep their body between the defender and the intended receiver. In Fuller's case, after the initial contact, he continued to try to drive through Darby to complete his route. By rule, he did NOT attempt to avoid contact. He actually prolonged the contact. Whether or not it should be called at that point of the game is one discussion. Whether or not it meets the criteria for offensive pass interference is another. I think that Fuller trying to drive through Darby, instead of trying to move around him or just throwing his hands up and continuing to shield Darby, is enough to qualify as Offensive Pass Interference. That's completely different from Prosise trying to drive through his man, as Prosise was still within the zone where contact is permitted. One thing that the rule is ambiguous about, is whether or not the defender has to make a move toward the intended receiver, in order to be considered to have been impeded.

I'm getting ready to board a flight, so that's all I've got for now.

Wrong. The rule says the offensive player has to try to avoid contact. The rule also clearly states that this is not offensive PI, which was the penalty called (after the ACC had 24 hours to think about it, lol). However, if he is coming off a cut and doesn't see the DB, then how could he try to avoid contact? Also, the DB jumped the route and could have been ruled defensive PI for impeding the WR route. This is called all the time when the ball is thrown to said WR. In this case the ball went to the flat, so it is a no-call situation.

 

[Guest]

Serious question. Why do you believe there is a case to be made for throwing the flag on Fuller. My counter argument being a few things:
1. From the corner endzone view you can clearly see fuller start his route outside, plant his foot and break inside. To me this indicates he was running a route otherwise he would have gone directly into the block. If FSU had run the proper coverage, Darby would have covered the flat not jumped inside with Fuller. So by Fuller planting his foot and cutting his route back inside, which he did BEFORE Darby made the move to jump inside and cut him off, Fuller ran the risk of Darby not going with him, and instead stepping up in the flat. If his intent was to block, again he would not have started outside then changed direction, he would have gone right at Darby and not run the risk of Darby not following him back inside. FSU had run this coverage previously in the game, but in that instance, I don't believe Fuller was going to assume the same without even making himself an option on the pass if Darby doesn't jump back inside and instead covers the flat.
2. Darby jumps the route inside, and literally as soon as Fuller changes direction, Darby jumps the route to initiate the contact. I know your argument will be about how it is the offensive player's responsibility to avoid this contact, but there is literally no way for Fuller to avoid this contact as it occurred literally one step after he made his cut and Darby broke hard...if the ball had been thrown to fuller it surely would have been DEFENSIVE interference as Darby made contact with fuller and interrupted his route with contact that would not be considered incidental.
3. While Prosise does not, Fuller DOES get his head around.
4. As was mentioned in a previous posts, or maybe in another thread, there is no conceivable way for the official who threw the flag to have been able to identify where Corey Robinson was at the moment he made the decision to begin reaching in his pocked for the flag. The ball had barely come out yet, and Robinson was MAYBE a yard beyond the LOS at that point...while the official was back under the goalpost with a horrible angle, and looking through traffic.

I get how you feel about the play, the call, and fan reaction to the call, but there is more than enough reason/justification for people to feel how they do. I really want to understand your argument, particularly if you could explain what you saw as it relates to the views available from the goal line as well as the back corner view.

He cannot defend his position because their is no defense for it. He is trying to stand on 1/2 of a rule without implementing the second part of it (see my explanation right above this post analyzing his response to you). Plus, he refuses to acknowledge the 2 other video views from the side and back of the end zone that clearly show Fuller running a fake outside, then stepping inside and how the DB interfered with this route. That is an inconvenient fact that nullifies his stance on applying the rule (actually only 1/2 of it) in this case.

 

[Emcee77]

Here ya go Emcee

http://www.theacc.com/#!/GameCenter/53fcc88be4b0e17998c230aa


00:13 GOLSON, Everett sideline pass complete to ROBINSON, Corey for 2 yards to the FS0, clock 00:13, PENALTY ND pass interference (PROSISE, CJ) 16 yards to the FS18, NO PLAY, clock 00:13.

Excellent, thank you.

I still don't get why the written record is deemed to control though. It seems to me that only the crew on the field knows who the call was on. Until they say that the referee announced the penalty incorrectly, I have to believe it was on Fuller. I mean, isn't that written record created by somebody sitting in the press box who just misunderstood the referee's announcement, possibly because he was also listening to the telecast and believed Herbstreit over his own ears?

But if anyone has any knowledge about how these "official records" are created, please let me know.

 

[NDohio]

I know it's Bleacher Report, but this stood out to me:

When asked about the controversial flag, the NCAA's coordinator of officials, Rogers Redding, told The Associated Press, "What you want to look for, is it truly a situation where the offensive player prohibits the defender from making a play?''

"It's got to be obvious, and the rule even says, 'an obvious intent to impede.'''

Rule 7-3-8 is what Redding cites. It's also what has Irish fans still grumbling about Ryan's interpretation of pass interference.

Was Notre Dame Robbed by Officials in Florida State Game? | Bleacher Report

 

[Guest]

I know it's Bleacher Report, but this stood out to me:



Was Notre Dame Robbed by Officials in Florida State Game? | Bleacher Report

Given that the DB had no chance to get to the flat and stop the WR, it could not be ruled as impeding the opponent. If Fuller simply moves a yard into the end zone and sits down, that particular DB, playing 5 yards off, has no chance of catching the WR all the way in the flat with only 2.5 yards to run in the end zone. It was a busted coverage by FS in which the only person who could make the play was the outside DB who did not cover C-Rob in the flat.

 

[BillyIrish]

The flag in that situation was hot garbage, but it's time to move on. After spending much of Sunday watching every possible angle of the play I could find, I became increasingly frustrated. Follow that up by answering half serious questions from trolling buckeye fans all day Monday and I'm tapped out. Team executed brilliantly. Kelly had a great night calling plays. Hopes of an unexpected run into the playoff is still alive. GO IRISH! Beat Navy

 

[Jerry]

Given that the DB had no chance to get to the flat and stop the WR, it could not be ruled as impeding the opponent. If Fuller simply moves a yard into the end zone and sits down, that particular DB, playing 5 yards off, has no chance of catching the WR all the way in the flat with only 2.5 yards to run in the end zone. It was a busted coverage by FS in which the only person who could make the play was the outside DB who did not cover C-Rob in the flat.

It's not only that Darby had no chance he actually takes 2 steps in to jam Fuller, so he's going the opposite direction of the WR who scores.

 

[FLDomer]

IDK if this has been posted but this was an interesting article from TP, pisses me off more, but interesting.

The Curious Case of Pat Ryan | Irish Turning Point

 

[ACamp1900]

It's still up?? one of our good friends wrote that bad boy.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

IDK if this has been posted but this was an interesting article from TP, pisses me off more, but interesting.

The Curious Case of Pat Ryan | Irish Turning Point

Written by IE's very own IrishLax.

It's still up?? one of our good friends wrote that bad boy.

He fixed some of the original errors. It's right on now.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I concur with that. I think there is a case to be made for throwing the flag on Fuller, but there is no excuse for throwing it on Prosise.

Upon rereading the rule, there is (this is my bad)

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 by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone
during a legal forward pass play in which a forward pass crosses the
neutral zone is contact that interferes with a Team B eligible player. 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 does not continue the contact more than three yards
beyond the neutral zone.
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.

I missed the INeligible part of the rule. There is no 3 yard rule for an eligible receiver. Call on Prosise makes more sense then, even though it was clearly on #7.

 

[IrishinSyria]

A lot of people seem to be simply making up rules, so here's the link to the official rulebook:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR14.pdf

 

[IrishLax]

Given that the DB had no chance to get to the flat and stop the WR, it could not be ruled as impeding the opponent. If Fuller simply moves a yard into the end zone and sits down, that particular DB, playing 5 yards off, has no chance of catching the WR all the way in the flat with only 2.5 yards to run in the end zone. It was a busted coverage by FS in which the only person who could make the play was the outside DB who did not cover C-Rob in the flat.

This is the crux of it all, isn't it? Neither player IMPEDES or PICKS anyone... they're both getting actively jammed by FSU players... because FSU blew the coverage and never attempted to cover Robinson with anyone.

If no one is trying to cover him, how can they be impeded!

 

[IrishLax]

It's still up?? one of our good friends wrote that bad boy.

Haha had to take it down and make SERIOUS edits with regards to the play on Saturday... but the spirit of "Pat Ryan has screwed Notre Dame in every game he has officiated" still stands.

 

[tussin]

I really hate all the sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek articles on all the "edgier" sports blogs that complete dismiss any argument that the call was incorrect.

Anyone with an ounce of objectivity that examines the film from various angles can see that the call was simply wrong.

Ugh, frustrating.

 

[GDomer09]

Living in Buckeye country and working 15min from the Shoe leaves very little fans of other teams besides OSU. Still these non-bias fans have almost 90% of the time completely disagreed with the call and the commentators during that game.

For the OSU fans who agreed with it I used one simple example that has gotten me the furthest in a healthy argument about it.

"If the flag wasn't thrown, would ESPN, FSU, or anybody else for that matter say we won because the refs missed that call?" The answer is Hell No!

Even if a person were to think it was Offensive pass interference this would lead them to say, "You know what your right no one would be talking about it. It should have been a non-call!"

Why ESPN and they're sportscasters are not looking at it this way is beyond me.

 

[kmoose]

Wrong. The rule says the offensive player has to try to avoid contact. The rule also clearly states that this is not offensive PI, which was the penalty called (after the ACC had 24 hours to think about it, lol). However, if he is coming off a cut and doesn't see the DB, then how could he try to avoid contact? Also, the DB jumped the route and could have been ruled defensive PI for impeding the WR route. This is called all the time when the ball is thrown to said WR. In this case the ball went to the flat, so it is a no-call situation.

Can you link to the rule that you are quoting, that says the offensive player has to TRY to avoid contact, and then goes on to specifically state that what Fuller did was not PI? Because I posted the rule yesterday, and asked you to point out where it said "try", and you never responded.

 

[kmoose]

Upon rereading the rule, there is (this is my bad)




I missed the INeligible part of the rule. There is no 3 yard rule for an eligible receiver. Call on Prosise makes more sense then, even though it was clearly on #7.

But you can reasonably infer that, if the defender is allowed to contact the receiver up to 5 yards down the field, then so would the offensive player be allowed to contact the defender. As long as the ball is not in the air, that is.

 

[kmoose]

This is the crux of it all, isn't it? Neither player IMPEDES or PICKS anyone... they're both getting actively jammed by FSU players... because FSU blew the coverage and never attempted to cover Robinson with anyone.

If no one is trying to cover him, how can they be impeded!

The rule is ambiguous about this. Sure would be nice if some a-hole at ESPN, FOX SPORTS, or NBC would explain this. I'm looking at you, Mike Pereira!!