Just curious

[TAB420]

There's no way that should have been called for a penalty. Bang-bang play and a good no call. How many times have we seen the LOB doing the exact same thing.

Call it what you want, I just watched the video again and frame by frame break down and maybe it doesn't warrant a flag, but it should take the blame off Locket and Wilson. The ball was heading right for Lockets hands and wouldn't have gone through his hands and into Butler's if Butler wouldn't have hit Lockets arm. This caused Lockets arm to rise up with enough force to knock Locket down.

A bang, bang play is one thing, but when a defenders action interferes with the rec ability to make that catch, that's another story.

 

[Silver Hawk]

I do not think it was interference. Butler was making a play on the ball and he didn't go "through" Lockette's back. Here is the NFL rule:

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch.
(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.
(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.
(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.
(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.
(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.
(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.
(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball.

 

[TAB420]

I feel that this would have been a good no call if he wouldn't have pushed Lockets arm up. The contact was made when Butler was still behind him. Also, bye the rules above, it looks like Browning should have been called for "Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball."

 

[Silver Hawk]

Here is the NFL verbiage regarding contact within the first 5 yards:

LEGAL CONTACT WITHIN FIVE YARDS
Article 1 Legal Contact Within Five Yards. Within five yards of the line of scrimmage, a defensive player may chuck an
eligible receiver in front of him. The defender is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard
zone, so long as the receiver has not moved beyond a point that is even with the defender.

ILLEGAL CONTACT WITHIN FIVE YARDS
Article 2 Illegal Contact Within Five Yards. Within the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the
pocket with the ball, a defender may not make original contact in the back of a receiver, nor may he maintain contact after
the receiver has moved beyond a point that is even with the defender.

 

[netskier]

Did butlers contact with Lockette knock him off his route, or off of his feet? If so then the contact was more than slight, as in section B, pass interference. Did Butler contact Lockette before the ball got to Lockette? I thought it did, but have not reviewed it.

 

[Silver Hawk]

Did butlers contact with Lockette knock him off his route, or off of his feet? If so then the contact was more than slight, as in section B, pass interference. Did Butler contact Lockette before the ball got to Lockette? I thought it did, but have not reviewed it.

What I saw was both players going for the ball. Butler and Lockette appeared to collide, shoulder to shoulder, a millisecond before the ball would have hit Lockette in the hands.

My conclusion is that Butler was making a play on the ball and that as such, contact is permissible so long as he was not going "through the back", It did not look to me as though he was going through the back.

There are many, many ways that this play could have gone down. What actually happened seems to be one of the very few ways that would result in anything other than an incompletion, penalty or Seahawk TD. Kind of a miracle play for NE.

I had a bigger issue with Browner tugging Kearse's jersey - which he most definitely did but I know that is not going to get called. Wishful thinking.

 

[TAB420]

That's what I saw also, until the frame by frame was posted.

 

[Silver Hawk]

That's what I saw also, until the frame by frame was posted.

I watched it frame by frame on my DVR. About 100 times. That's all that I can see. I see Butler with his eyes zeroed in on where the ball is going to be and getting there pretty much at the same time as Lockette, maybe just slightly after. My read is that the only thing that matters is whether Butler was playing the ball and whether he was going "through" the back. Looked to me mostly like shoulder to shoulder, as opposed to anything that could be construed to be through the back.

Given the size difference, kind of hard to believe that Lockette got his clock cleaned. I suppose that was because of the different angle and speed that Butler had going to the spot.

 

[grizbob]

Is there anybody from around these here parts that think had the roles been reversed that the Hawks wouldn't have been called for PI. :x

 

[netskier]

Is the frame by frame posted on the net?

 

[TAB420]

That's what I saw also, until the frame by frame was posted.

I watched it frame by frame on my DVR. About 100 times. That's all that I can see. I see Butler with his eyes zeroed in on where the ball is going to be and getting there pretty much at the same time as Lockette, maybe just slightly after. My read is that the only thing that matters is whether Butler was playing the ball and whether he was going "through" the back. Looked to me mostly like shoulder to shoulder, as opposed to anything that could be construed to be through the back.

Given the size difference, kind of hard to believe that Lockette got his clock cleaned. I suppose that was because of the different angle and speed that Butler had going to the spot.

It looked to me like Locket got rocked, due to the fact that Butler came up under his arm lifting him up a moment before he ran into him, or they ran into each other.

 

[TAB420]

That's what I saw also, until the frame by frame was posted.

I watched it frame by frame on my DVR. About 100 times. That's all that I can see. I see Butler with his eyes zeroed in on where the ball is going to be and getting there pretty much at the same time as Lockette, maybe just slightly after. My read is that the only thing that matters is whether Butler was playing the ball and whether he was going "through" the back. Looked to me mostly like shoulder to shoulder, as opposed to anything that could be construed to be through the back.

Given the size difference, kind of hard to believe that Lockette got his clock cleaned. I suppose that was because of the different angle and speed that Butler had going to the spot.

It looked to me like Locket got rocked, due to the fact that Butler came up under his arm lifting him up a moment before he ran into him, or they ran into each other.

 

[Silver Hawk]

That's what I saw also, until the frame by frame was posted.

I watched it frame by frame on my DVR. About 100 times. That's all that I can see. I see Butler with his eyes zeroed in on where the ball is going to be and getting there pretty much at the same time as Lockette, maybe just slightly after. My read is that the only thing that matters is whether Butler was playing the ball and whether he was going "through" the back. Looked to me mostly like shoulder to shoulder, as opposed to anything that could be construed to be through the back.

Given the size difference, kind of hard to believe that Lockette got his clock cleaned. I suppose that was because of the different angle and speed that Butler had going to the spot.

It looked to me like Locket got rocked, due to the fact that Butler came up under his arm lifting him up a moment before he ran into him, or they ran into each other.

Yes, I agree with you. I would just add that it was clear Butler was making a play on the ball. I don't know what the technical definition of "going through the back" is but I'm pretty sure that his contact wasn't it. With both of those factors in Butler's favor, he was in the clear.

I don't know anything about throwing slants but I'm thinking if that ball is on Lockette's numbers, Butler would have had to go through his back to get at the ball. Then he would have had a PI.

 

[netskier]

Where is the frame by frame?

 

[Tyakack]

There's no way that should have been called for a penalty. Bang-bang play and a good no call. How many times have we seen the LOB doing the exact same thing.

Call it what you want, I just watched the video again and frame by frame break down and maybe it doesn't warrant a flag, but it should take the blame off Locket and Wilson. The ball was heading right for Lockets hands and wouldn't have gone through his hands and into Butler's if Butler wouldn't have hit Lockets arm. This caused Lockets arm to rise up with enough force to knock Locket down.

A bang, bang play is one thing, but when a defenders action interferes with the rec ability to make that catch, that's another story.

Well, intercepting the ball is interfering with the rec ability to make the catch lol.......

 

[TAB420]

There's no way that should have been called for a penalty. Bang-bang play and a good no call. How many times have we seen the LOB doing the exact same thing.

Call it what you want, I just watched the video again and frame by frame break down and maybe it doesn't warrant a flag, but it should take the blame off Locket and Wilson. The ball was heading right for Lockets hands and wouldn't have gone through his hands and into Butler's if Butler wouldn't have hit Lockets arm. This caused Lockets arm to rise up with enough force to knock Locket down.

A bang, bang play is one thing, but when a defenders action interferes with the rec ability to make that catch, that's another story.

Well, intercepting the ball is interfering with the rec ability to make the catch lol.......

lol...True, but it's the act before the INT that pissed me off... ukeface: I can't even began to understand the no call on the tripping.