Replies

There was no replay where they showed the Miami player holding him before the ball was thrown.

The second reply the showed, from behind the play and concentrating on the right side, showed clearly that the two players hands were all over each other, beginning at the line of scrimmage and continuing throughout the play. Their contact never ceased.

I don't know what you were watching, but I saw it plainly.

The second reply the showed, from behind the play and concentrating on the right side, showed clearly that the two players hands were all over each other, beginning at the line of scrimmage and continuing throughout the play. Their contact never ceased.

That seemed to be the case as I viewed it, too. Earlier in the game some of these were not called, this time it was. I'm not an expert on collegiate rules, but it seems to me that if the defender impedes the receiver's route to the ball, it constitutes interference. Its a judgement call, I guess, and it went the Buckeyes' way and against the 'Canes. That happens, and you have to deal with it. Its hard to write off an entire game on the basis of one play and one call when there were so many others.

The one Miami coach stated he told his players to "get in the faces" of the receivers. IMO, giving the benefit of doubt, this doesn't mean he was telling them outright to foul, but to play aggressive defense. Well, when you play aggressive defense on passing downs, you always run the risk of being called for a penalty. The refs aren't stupid, they're watching more closely on those kinds of downs then they might otherwise. In this case, Miami got bit. Again, it happens.

I agree their hands were all over each other. That's legal as long as the ball's not in the air at the time. "Holding" is just that - grabbing hold of the player and there was no replay showing that.

"The second reply the showed, from behind the play and concentrating on the right side, showed clearly that the two players hands were all over each other, beginning at the line of scrimmage and continuing throughout the play. Their contact never ceased."

So, then, if the Offensive Receiver had his "hands" "all over" the defensive player, it then becomes a question of OFFENSIVE pass interference.

We all know that this kind of contact is common in games. You can put your hand "on" the defender or receiver, but you cannot "interfere".

So, is the Offesive Receiver just as guilty (as you seem to be admitting) of "interference"?

If your criteria to determine "pass interference" is that the defender had HIS hands "all over" the offensive receiver and IF, as you admit, the offensive receiver ALSO had HIS hands "all over" the defender (which would be just as illegal), couldn't this have also been OFFENSIVE "pass interference"?

Furthermore, I'd be interested to look at the rest of the game to see if this same type of contact was TOLERATED during the game. We both know that this kind of contact frequently is tolerated.

Remember, also, the end of the first half in the M v Florida game when Loyd Carr was talking with the Official regarding what Carr thought was "Interference" on the last Hail Mary play. What did the official tell Carr ON CAMERA -that the offensive player would have to get "Outright MUGGED" in order for there to be that call at the end of the half or at the end of the game.

If we use the standards that the Officials from the M v Florida game used, there simply was NO mugging.

Jean