At the end, where Haaaaaavard makes their amazing comeback, the referee is literally sandwiched between on-rushing, celebrating fans.
If he was crushed, hopefully it was by the guy that called pass interference in the end zone. (which it wasn't even close!)
he had to of died, I mean he was screwed in the middle of that mosh pit.
"Whoo! Whoo! Hey, Parny. I'm going to Chicago, baby! I'm driving a stick!"
"If he was crushed, hopefully it was by the guy that called pass interference in the end zone. (which it wasn't even close!)"
I disagree...just watched this for the second time moments ago, and as the DB was swatting at the ball with his left hand as he reached around the receiver, it did indeed look like a clean defensive play.
But then as the play proceeds you see likely what the referee say, that his right arm was wrapped around the waist of the receiver, and he was yanking his body around as he was reaching for the ball...and this appears to also be why the receiver dropped the ball that was thrown right to him.
[deleted]
It looked to me like:
- the defender legally reached around and knocked the ball away with his left arm;
- after the ball had already been knocked away, he pulled the receiver with his right arm as his momentum carried him past him.
I don't think that would be pass interference, at least under the current rules. It's only pass interference if:
- The contact is made by a defending player "whose intent to impede an eligible opponent is obvious." In this case, the contact with the right arm was really incidental.
- (more to the point) The contact "could prevent the opponent the opportunity of receiving a catchable forward pass." At that point, the ball had already been knocked down, and the receiver had no opportunity to catch it.
Of course, both players have an equal right to reach the ball. The incidental contact in the course of reaching around is legal on this basis, unless it was obviously intended to impede AND could've prevented a reception.
It's not entirely clear, to me anyway, where the referee who called the penalty was standing. If he was behind (downfield of) the receiver and the defender, he wouldn't have had a clear view of the ball being cleanly knocked down, and easily could've misperceived what happened.
The other post is right about the absence of multiple angles making it pretty hard to be definitive, though I think the angle the camera had was a relatively good one.
[deleted]