Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bush

[IronMan]

There was a play I believe at the end of the half, where Bush was called for pass interference, and they ended up reviewing it to see if the Panther receiver went out of bounds first, and was the first to touch it; which would have been an illegal touching.

Well, at first I was wondering if that play should have been reviewed. After doing a little research, I found that had it been determined that the Panther receiver was guilty of illegal touching, then the penalties would have off set and they would have replayed the down. He was NOT the first to touch it, so it wasn't a penalty, but that's why they reviewed it.

Here's where I found it.
And btw, I don't think it was pass interference in the first place. But anyway. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...91627.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-headlines

If the QB throws a pass to a WR who is running down the sidelines and a DB pushes the WR out of bounds while the ball is in the air it should draw a pass interference penalty. But if said received came back in bounds and was the first to touch the ball that would seemingly draw an illegal touching penalty. In a case like this would the penalties offset? --Dutch Morgan, South Bend, Ind.

If the wide receiver is pushed out of bounds by the defensive back beyond the five-yard zone, a foul for illegal contact occurs. And this, coupled with a defensive pass interference foul, would create an offset and the down would be replayed. If the push out of bounds occurs in the first five yards, there is no foul for illegal contact, but the wide receiver cannot touch the ball until it has been legally touched by any eligible player. This would create an offset for illegal touching and pass interference. In both of your situations, the penalties would offset and the down would be replayed.

 

[PackinSteel]

Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

I honestly didn't see Bigby push the receiver out. Yeah the guy went OB but Bigby was just playing the ball as he is allowed to do. So what that the receiver ran OB behind him. He wasn't pushed that I recall. Should have just been an incomplete pass.

 

[IronMan]

Re: Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

I agree. It was good coverage by Bigby

 

[axelred13]

Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

The penalty was called on Bush, not Bigby.

 

[Sangill]

Re: Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

The penalty was called on Bush, not Bigby.

Aye, the receiver got "pushed" out of bounds by Bush, before they went for the ball. Bigby had nothing to do with penalty.

 

[TheKanataThrilla]

Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

What I thought was weird was if they were calling the penalty on the initial push out of bounds why was the ball placed on the 7 instead of where the infraction happened (around the 20 yard line) . Should that also not have been called a 5 yard infraction for hitting the receiver after 5 yards? There was no interference with the catch as the GB player had position on the pass. In my mind they received a 13 yard gift on that play.

 

[axelred13]

Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

That is a very good point.

Is there a video of this play somewhere?

 

[Aytumious]

Re: Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

What I thought was weird was if they were calling the penalty on the initial push out of bounds why was the ball placed on the 7 instead of where the infraction happened (around the 20 yard line) . Should that also not have been called a 5 yard infraction for hitting the receiver after 5 yards? There was no interference with the catch as the GB player had position on the pass. In my mind they received a 13 yard gift on that play.

My friend and I wondered the same thing. It was PI because the ball had just been thrown when Bush bumped the guy, but the PI happened right around the 20 like you mentioned. How they decided to spot it where Bush tipped the ball is baffling to me. Everything was clean after that initial bump at the 20.

 

[TOPackerFan]

Re: Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

What I thought was weird was if they were calling the penalty on the initial push out of bounds why was the ball placed on the 7 instead of where the infraction happened (around the 20 yard line) . Should that also not have been called a 5 yard infraction for hitting the receiver after 5 yards? There was no interference with the catch as the GB player had position on the pass. In my mind they received a 13 yard gift on that play.

The refs buggered up another call.

 

[packerfan4ever]

Re: Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

no surprise ther biby is really taking off which is good

 

[Pack88]

Re: Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

I was puzzled by the location of the ball as well, if the bump by Bush was the genisis of the call then it should have been at the 20 not the 7. I did not see Bush cut him off either but that is interperative, still should have been at the 20 not the 7. The play by Bigby was clean! I hope Perera reviews that this week so we can hear the officals sbrewed up another one. The only thing that made it a little more acceptable (besides the fact that GB won) was that Hochusucks didn't make the call!
Pack88

 

[TheKanataThrilla]

Re: Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

What I thought was weird was if they were calling the penalty on the initial push out of bounds why was the ball placed on the 7 instead of where the infraction happened (around the 20 yard line) . Should that also not have been called a 5 yard infraction for hitting the receiver after 5 yards? There was no interference with the catch as the GB player had position on the pass. In my mind they received a 13 yard gift on that play.

My friend and I wondered the same thing. It was PI because the ball had just been thrown when Bush bumped the guy, but the PI happened right around the 20 like you mentioned. How they decided to spot it where Bush tipped the ball is baffling to me. Everything was clean after that initial bump at the 20.

Thanks for clarifying that the pass was in the air when the bump happened. I saw the replay about 10 times, but never once noticed the QB because I was too busy scratching my head figuring out how the ball managed to end up on the 7.

 

[Hammer]

Re: Clearing up the pass interfernce play on Bigby

What I thought was weird was if they were calling the penalty on the initial push out of bounds why was the ball placed on the 7 instead of where the infraction happened (around the 20 yard line) . Should that also not have been called a 5 yard infraction for hitting the receiver after 5 yards? There was no interference with the catch as the GB player had position on the pass. In my mind they received a 13 yard gift on that play.

That was my impression, I was calling for a 5 yard penalty.

 

[axelred13]

If the ball is in the air its PI, whether its interfering with the actual catch or not.

From what I remember the ball was in fact in the air therefore it was PI.