Originally posted by AlexCat49er:
Originally posted by a49erfan77:
Originally posted by AlexCat49er:
Originally posted by a49erfan77:
Still shaking my head about that OPI call. Luckily it wasn't hurtful since it kept us in position for a top 2 pick, but it is still frustrating.
9 out of 10 experts agree that it was the right call though, so I wouldn't get too upset about it or at least you should direct that anger towards Shanahan for calling all of these obvious pick plays.
I'll take the word of Mike Pereira over your 9 experts, but thanks for trying.
San Francisco was also the victim of a questionable final-drive OPI call in their loss to the Rams a couple weeks ago. Former Vice President of Officiating Mike Pereira told Gary & Larry on Monday afternoon that Sunday's call was far more egregious.
"I've got news for you, if you thought the one a couple weeks ago was bad, this one was horrible," Pereira said. "There's nothing about this that sets up as offensive pass interference, except for some contact, but if you watch him he's working his way upfield, he was looking back toward the quarterback first. The ball was thrown to him. You could make a stronger case for defensive pass interference than you could for offensive pass interference. This whole emphasis on offensive pass interference has obviously gone to far here because I still maintain on the last one you couldn't really tell.
"To use the Troy Aikman language, it was a horrible call at a horrible time. I agree with Tim Ryan, it was awful, and at that point in the game it better just be so obvious but the elements just were not there. If you're gonna call a pick route, call a pick route when they throw to the outside and complete a pass to the receiver whose defender got picked, but it wasn't even a pass to him."
Gary asked Pereira if the 49ers are getting less love from the officials because of their 0-6 record. Pereira dismissed the notion, saying that when officials miss calls like the one on Garcon, their jobs are in jeopardy.
"No because I'm telling you if I'm the official that made that call, I don't know which one it was, but he looks at that play after the game and he goes 'oh my god, I got a downgrade, that's at least one I know I've gotten in the game,' and there's a constant turnover in this league that has to do with performance," Pereira said. "They don't announce it, but there is, and so you don't want to make those calls, and you don't look at color of the jersey, you don't even look at the player. You just want to make the right call, because if you don't make right calls you're going to be out of the playoffs, and maybe out of the league in a two year period, so it really doesn't work that way."
So you found one of the few "experts" who doesn't see it correctly? Do you understand what 9 out of 10 means?
Can you find one "expert" who agrees it was OPI other than Brown from the Redskins? I can't. I looked.... didn't find a single expert who agreed with the call who wasn't on the Redskins payroll.
Here's what the NFL rulebook states on PI courtesy of ninernoise.com
Section 5 (Pass Interference), Article 1: Definition: It is pass interference by either team when any act by a player more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders an eligible player's opportunity to catch the ball.
This sentence sets the guidelines for where pass interference is legal. Garçon was just beyond one yard from the line of scrimmage, so he was in an area where he could potentially commit pass interference — but only if he hindered a defender's opportunity to catch the ball.
Article 1 continues to discuss offensive pass interference specifically:
Offensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. See Article 2 for prohibited acts while the ball is in the air and Article 4 for prohibited acts prior to the pass.
Alright, let's take a look at Article 2 to see what a receiver can't do when the ball is in the air –highlighting the potentially applicable portions:
Section 5, Article 2: Prohibited acts by both teams while the ball is in the air(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent's opportunity to make the catch;
Garçon didn't initiate contact with Brown, and Brown wasn't attempting to make the catch, as his back was to the play. So, no violation here by Garçon , and certainly a violation here by Brown. Let's continue:
(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball;
Since Brown initiated the contact, and only Garçon made a play on the ball, Garçon wasn't capable of committing the prohibited act. Perhaps Article 4 will shed some light on the call:
Section 5, Article 4: Other prohibited acts by the offenseBlocking more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage by an offensive player prior to a pass being thrown is offensive pass interference.
Garçon was running a route, and was the intended receiver on the play, so he certainly wasn't "blocking" Brown — and Brown didn't make contact with Garçon until after the ball was thrown, so Article 4 doesn't apply to this play.
Also, Brown made contact first - he even admitted it in the post-game presser when he said, "I saw him coming so I hit him".
