84HuskerLaw
New member
Agree that it would be helpful to see several other camera angles to better judge but this is a basic pass interfence in my judgment. The rule does say that the offensive player is responsible for avoiding the defender (this is basically the same thing as the 'charging foul' vs. blocking type rules in basketball. That is, the player has the right to stand his ground (in other words the player who gets there first has the legit claim to the spot. The defender can't run over the opponent nor can the offensive guy run over the defender. But, all passes are presumed 'catchable' unless is it clear and obvious. It is a judgment call of course but when the defender impedes the progress of the receiver then of course the pass can become uncatchable. If the defender gets in the way and the receiver has to slow down in an effort to avoid the defensive player, then it is pass interference. The benefit of the doubt goes to the receiver. In the end it is a common sense judgement call as to which player caused or created the conditions in which the receiver did not catch the pass. If the ball isnot within reach by a receiver that is not being impeded from getting to it, then it is not catchable and the interference won't be called. Here the ball appears to be well within the realm of 'catchable' for Westy if he was not impeded.I think there was contact but not as much as it looks like from that angle. There can be contact but whether it's a foul depends on a lot of things.I'm also confused as to the interpretation you are making Mav. Did he make contact and impede the path to the ball? I don't understand how Westerkamp slowing down makes any difference.
I think Westy slowed down before there was contact but a lot of people seem to think it was the contact that slowed him down. That makes a lot of difference in whether the contact prevented him from getting to the pass.
As I said, the rule states it's the offense's job to avoid the defense. And it Westy slowed down on his own, I'm not sure he was going to catch that pass even if there wasn't any contact.
If it would have been called, I don't think anyone would have argued against it. Maybe it was. But I definitely don't think it was as obvious as some like to think. Especially without seeing it from a different angle. We saw one angle that was nowhere near what any of the refs would have seen. It also happened to be the worst angle to tell how much contact there was an who initiated it.
Last edited by a moderator: