What Did We Learn?.....Purdue

[Dan_F_31]

Having seen it again, it was the correct call. It's actually a very flat trajectory for a pass of that depth. It does not satisfy the requirement for simulation. Furthermore, it doesn't satisfy the spirit of the rule: these are not two players engaged going downfield as they would on a punt. The defender does not even engage until the pass is to arrive. 

I am convinced that Brohm was not looking to successfully complete the catch but his sole purpose was to get the DPI. Here is my reasoning.

1) It was 4th and 19 so you have a very slim chance of converting even with a real QB throwing the ball. it was a crazy call if you actually wanted to complete the pass and convert.

2) you can not reasonably expect a punter to make a 40 yard throw.

3) Brohm said they worked on it all week. To me this means they worked on making sure the pass was low enough trajectory to not be perceived as a high "arcing" simulated punt. This would take timing to make sure the receiver gets to a spot and waits to be hit by the Bootle.

4) the referee seemed to have an explanation for why it was a flag based on an obscure exception to the rule.  I'm just speculating but I would be willing to bet that Brohm talked to the officials before the game, informed them that Purdue was going to run this fake punt and how they interpreted the rule.  Coaches go to officials prior to games to inform them of a  play that will only be successful if the referee interprets the rule correctly.

The Rule should be changes to eliminate that exception of "simulating a scrimmage kick"

 

[teachercd]

I am convinced that Brohm was not looking to successfully complete the catch but his sole purpose was to get the DPI. Here is my reasoning.

1) It was 4th and 19 so you have a very slim chance of converting even with a real QB throwing the ball. it was a crazy call if you actually wanted to complete the pass and convert.

2) you can not reasonably expect a punter to make a 40 yard throw.

3) Brohm said they worked on it all week. To me this means they worked on making sure the pass was low enough trajectory to not be perceived as a high "arcing" simulated punt. This would take timing to make sure the receiver gets to a spot and waits to be hit by the Bootle.

4) the referee seemed to have an explanation for why it was a flag based on an obscure exception to the rule.  I'm just speculating but I would be willing to bet that Brohm talked to the officials before the game, informed them that Purdue was going to run this fake punt and how they interpreted the rule.  Coaches go to officials prior to games to inform them of a  play that will only be successful if the referee interprets the rule correctly.

The Rule should be changes to eliminate that exception of "simulating a scrimmage kick"

Yep your number 4 is spot on.

 

[BIG ERN]

You cannot call a fake punt pass interference. The Refs got that call wrong...If in punting formation and throw the ball high and deep cannot be called 

 

[Dan_F_31]

You cannot call a fake punt pass interference. The Refs got that call wrong...If in punting formation and throw the ball high and deep cannot be called 

The rule is not black and white that you strictly can not call DPI on a fake punt pass.

The rule states (From the LJS article) "Indeed, the NCAA’s rule says defensive pass interference is not to be called when, “there is contact by a (receiving team) player that otherwise would be pass interference during a down in which a (kicking team) potential kicker, from a scrimmage kick formation, simulates a scrimmage kick by throwing the ball high and deep.”

There is room for interpretation from the officials in this rule.  

The rule says that the kicker can throw the ball but it must NOT be "high and deep" if DPI is to be called. The HIGH and DEEP part is what is open to interpretation. Not the Punter throwing the ball. The thrown pass must meet BOTH of those requirements in order to NOT be DPI. 

The refs (with the help of Brohm I suspect) interpreted that the ball did not meet the "HIGH" requirement of that rule. This is evidenced by the quote from Riley that the refs said the ball was NOT thrown high enough or "arcing" and therefore did not simulate a punt.

This rule should be changed to take the interpretation out of it. It should just state ANY pass from the punter in the punt formation can not have DPI called. And not because of this particular call. High and Deep should be defined. And I bet you would get varying opinions on what constitutes both High and Deep. And once you've defined High and Deep that can be accurately determined by the referee in the field of play the second question you must ask is can a punter from 12 yds behind the line of scrimmage REALISTICALLY meet the requirements of High and Deep? I doubt it.  

It is a poorly worded rule that would be interpreted differently by different officials and these officials had the help of the Brohm and the home field crowd to assist in their interpretation.

this also doesn't account for the possibility of the punter shanking it.

 

[BIG ERN]

The rule is not black and white that you strictly can not call DPI on a fake punt pass.

The rule states (From the LJS article) "Indeed, the NCAA’s rule says defensive pass interference is not to be called when, “there is contact by a (receiving team) player that otherwise would be pass interference during a down in which a (kicking team) potential kicker, from a scrimmage kick formation, simulates a scrimmage kick by throwing the ball high and deep.”

There is room for interpretation from the officials in this rule.  

The rule says that the kicker can throw the ball but it must NOT be "high and deep" if DPI is to be called. The HIGH and DEEP part is what is open to interpretation. Not the Punter throwing the ball. The thrown pass must meet BOTH of those requirements in order to NOT be DPI. 

The refs (with the help of Brohm I suspect) interpreted that the ball did not meet the "HIGH" requirement of that rule. This is evidenced by the quote from Riley that the refs said the ball was NOT thrown high enough or "arcing" and therefore did not simulate a punt.

This rule should be changed to take the interpretation out of it. It should just state ANY pass from the punter in the punt formation can not have DPI called. And not because of this particular call. High and Deep should be defined. And I bet you would get varying opinions on what constitutes both High and Deep. And once you've defined High and Deep that can be accurately determined by the referee in the field of play the second question you must ask is can a punter from 12 yds behind the line of scrimmage REALISTICALLY meet the requirements of High and Deep? I doubt it.  

It is a poorly worded rule that would be interpreted differently by different officials and these officials had the help of the Brohm and the home field crowd to assist in their interpretation.

this also doesn't account for the possibility of the punter shanking it.

Very poorly worded rule. NFL you cannot call PI on any fake punt pass regardless of what happens to my knowledge 

 

[Big Red Commie]

We learned once again that we can nearly lose to one of our crappy 3rd tier peers, which is to say we learned nothing.  

We again "learned" that Riley "really likes this team", which, translated, means Riley likes being 4-8, or 5-7, 6-6, which makes complete sense as it defines his comfort zone:  why stress out getting paid several 1000s every day to win many games, when you can make the same money just winning a few and getting your a$$ kicked by any of the good teams in the conf. or country?  The guy has his mediocre coaching scam down to a science, just be nice and say repeatedly that you "really like this team", and "brick by brick".

OMG, what a joke NE football has become...its Callahanian.