Jump to content

The other side of the Grimes PI call


JOEinPHX
 Share

Recommended Posts

This isn't likely to make me any friends on the board, but I have to agree with the PI call on Grimes.

What probably hurts most is that he played it exactly the way CBs are coached to play it - get inside position, use your body to hold the receiver off the ball, prevent the reception. He got all of that right. But for three steps prior to the pick, he was riding hard into the receiver. Hard enough to knock him off his route. He didn't just prevent him from coming to the ball, he drove him well away from it. That's what earned the call.

I have to believe that if a Falcons receiver got knocked off his route the same way, we'd all be calling for PI. And what's up with everybody saying that the commentator's all agree that it was a good play by Grimes? Aren't these the same commentators who, according to this board at least, don't ever get anything right?

Edited by JOEinPHX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't likely to make me any friends on the board, but I have to agree with the PI call on Grimes.

What probably hurts most is that he played it exactly the way CBs are coached to play it - get inside position, use your body to hold the receiver off the ball, prevent the reception. He got all of that right. But for three steps prior to the pick, he was riding hard into the receiver. Hard enough to knock him off his route. He didn't just prevent him from coming to the ball, he drove him well away from it. That's what earned the call.

I have to believe that if a Falcons receiver got knocked off his route the same way, we'd all be calling for PI. And what's up with everybody saying that the commentator's all agree that it was a good play by Grimes? Aren't these the same commentators that, according to this board at least, don't ever get anything right?

Not true because almost every game i see it happening to Gonzo and White and no one calls anything.. Also see headlocks and wrestling moves on our D-lineman and no holding calls, so... i have to disagree but i respect your point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was disapointing. One of the few times our guy has head turned and making a play on the ball instead of face guarding and we can't catch a break. I was right in front of in and all I saw was a simple are bar and Grimes making play on a lofted pass. The reciever was infront of Grimes and slowed to the ball so really Grimes just prevented him from coming back into his line. There was some acting on the reciever's part as well. Pretty soon we will be calling it Soccer. Would like to see play again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true because almost every game i see it happening to Gonzo and White and no one calls anything.. Also see headlocks and wrestling moves on our D-lineman and no holding calls, so... i have to disagree but i respect your point of view.

Actually, I think you just made my point - we're seeing the same thing done to our receivers and yelling 'PI'! Gonzalez gets mugged on pretty much every route, and Roddy gets his share too. So there's room for an argument of bias, but every fan of every team makes that argument every week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with anything other than your interpretation of the rule. If both men are playing the ball, both are allowed to "drive" to the ball in order to make a play on the ball. I played Soccer for years. Many of those indirect direct kicks you see are a result of a defender playing the man instead of the ball. If you are driving toward the ball and defending your path, all is good. If you take an indirect route to the ball in order to impede progress, its a foul. The rule is the same in the NFL. The defender has a right to play the ball in the air (so long as you don't run through someone on that line).

In my opinion, Grimes was on a direct line to the ball, and aggressively defending his postion on that line. Technically, that is within the rules.

I have no beef with the PI call. I think it bothers me it was inconsistant. The Falcons very next drive a N.O. defender got his arm loosly around the waist of the the intended reciever beyond 5 yards and their was no call. That is the way it is in the NFL. The good team gets the benefit of a doubt.

The Falcons had 5 or 6 opportunities to make a play and just didn't get it done. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with anything other than your interpretation of the rule. If both men are playing the ball, both are allowed to "drive" to the ball in order to make a play on the ball. I played Soccer for years. Many of those indirect direct kicks you see are a result of a defender playing the man instead of the ball. If you are driving toward the ball and defending your path, all is good. If you take an indirect route to the ball in order to impede progress, its a foul. The rule is the same in the NFL. The defender has a right to play the ball in the air (so long as you don't run through someone on that line).

In my opinion, Grimes was on a direct line to the ball, and aggressively defending his postion on that line. Technically, that is within the rules.

I have no beef with the PI call. I think it bothers me it was inconsistant. The Falcons very next drive a N.O. defender got his arm loosly around the waist of the the intended reciever beyond 5 yards and their was no call. That is the way it is in the NFL. The good team gets the benefit of a doubt.

The Falcons had 5 or 6 opportunities to make a play and just didn't get it done. End of story.

Nah, I think he interpreted the rule correctly, b/c what I see is about 3-4 steps b/4 the ball gets there, Grimes moves inside the WR, but then moves the WR towards the sideline. IMO it should have been a no call b/c Grimes made a great play and it wasn't blatant PI, however I don't think the ref was completely out of line with the call either. After you factor in the fact that I'm completely biased that probably means the ref made the right call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with anything other than your interpretation of the rule. If both men are playing the ball, both are allowed to "drive" to the ball in order to make a play on the ball. I played Soccer for years. Many of those indirect direct kicks you see are a result of a defender playing the man instead of the ball. If you are driving toward the ball and defending your path, all is good. If you take an indirect route to the ball in order to impede progress, its a foul. The rule is the same in the NFL. The defender has a right to play the ball in the air (so long as you don't run through someone on that line).

In my opinion, Grimes was on a direct line to the ball, and aggressively defending his postion on that line. Technically, that is within the rules.

I have no beef with the PI call. I think it bothers me it was inconsistant. The Falcons very next drive a N.O. defender got his arm loosly around the waist of the the intended reciever beyond 5 yards and their was no call. That is the way it is in the NFL. The good team gets the benefit of a doubt.

The Falcons had 5 or 6 opportunities to make a play and just didn't get it done. End of story.

Now I'm gonna need to roll tape to figure this out, because you're right about taking a line to the ball. But my memory of it is that Grimes had to curl back inside at the end of the play to make the pick. If I'm right, that would be seen as impeding the receiver. Anybody got a video link on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, it wasn't a "bad" call, but it could have also been a non call. It makes me wonder what would have happened if Grimes hadn't intercepted the ball. The ref might have let a little bumping slip. We'll never know.

As to the comment that the horse collar rule is only in place to help the offense...............not true. David Irons was IR'd last year because of a horse collar tackle. It can be dangerous and needs to be in check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I think he interpreted the rule correctly, b/c what I see is about 3-4 steps b/4 the ball gets there, Grimes moves inside the WR, but then moves the WR towards the sideline. IMO it should have been a no call b/c Grimes made a great play and it wasn't blatant PI, however I don't think the ref was completely out of line with the call either. After you factor in the fact that I'm completely biased that probably means the ref made the right call.

As I said in my post, I don't have any beef with the call. What is "technically" legal and how a game is normally called are two different things. My point is this: If Antoine Winfield, Brian Dawkins, Asante Samuels, Rashean Mathis, Nate Clements, or Deion Sanders make that play...its no call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't likely to make me any friends on the board, but I have to agree with the PI call on Grimes.

What probably hurts most is that he played it exactly the way CBs are coached to play it - get inside position, use your body to hold the receiver off the ball, prevent the reception. He got all of that right. But for three steps prior to the pick, he was riding hard into the receiver. Hard enough to knock him off his route. He didn't just prevent him from coming to the ball, he drove him well away from it. That's what earned the call.

I have to believe that if a Falcons receiver got knocked off his route the same way, we'd all be calling for PI. And what's up with everybody saying that the commentator's all agree that it was a good play by Grimes? Aren't these the same commentators who, according to this board at least, don't ever get anything right?

I agree with you 100%, but there won't be many others that do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said in my post, I don't have any beef with the call. What is "technically" legal and how a game is normally called are two different things. My point is this: If Antoine Winfield, Brian Dawkins, Asante Samuels, Rashean Mathis, Nate Clements, or Deion Sanders make that play...its no call.

Oh, I forgot the best argument of all on this board: The call got a, "C'mon Man" on MNF. /END :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL rules suck cause they benefit the offense..High Scoring teams put fans in seats and the NFL doesnt want to see dominant defense so every rule is favoring the offense from PI to horse collar tackling to illegal contact

It seems to me that tacking i itelf illegal contact, hello. Good point tho' question "what constitutes a good defense in this league, given what you stated?" Anybody???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm gonna need to roll tape to figure this out, because you're right about taking a line to the ball. But my memory of it is that Grimes had to curl back inside at the end of the play to make the pick. If I'm right, that would be seen as impeding the receiver. Anybody got a video link on this?

Here's a picture.

grimesgoodcoverage.jpg

Here are the highlights with the PI call and everyone in the studio disagreeing with it.

Saints Falcons Highlights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that tacking i itelf illegal contact, hello. Good point tho' question "what constitutes a good defense in this league, given what you stated?" Anybody???

You wont see defenses like the 00' Ravens or the days of the Steel Curtain any more ..

Jets this year are ranked number 1 defense but allowed 30 the Dolphins..

all these rules and the refs concentrating on PI calls/ contact calls started after what Pats did to the Colts in playoffs years back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the best play grimes has made in his career...and probably the best play our secondary made all year, there is no way you could look someone in the eye and say that there is any way a flag could be thrown on this....the contact was coming from both players and grimes made an outstanding play ON THE BALL...Chris Houston please take note...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grimes has just as much right to the area of the field as the WR. The WR doesn't own that area just b/c that's where their route is going. Grimes had his back to the WR and was playing the ball in the air. If anything it should have been offensive pass interference since the saints WR held Grimes back and at worst incidental contact.

A Defensive player, according to the rules, should not have interference called on him if the WR runs into him, which is what happened on that play.

Blown call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to believe that if a Falcons receiver got knocked off his route the same way, we'd all be calling for PI.

You mean like Vilma did to Roddy last game where the int was a pick 6?

I have no problem with the call going either way, but be consistent. If being five minutes late to work is being late for me, then it should be late for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grimes has just as much right to the area of the field as the WR. The WR doesn't own that area just b/c that's where their route is going. Grimes had his back to the WR and was playing the ball in the air. If anything it should have been offensive pass interference since the saints WR held Grimes back and at worst incidental contact.

A Defensive player, according to the rules, should not have interference called on him if the WR runs into him, which is what happened on that play.

Blown call.

Grimes appeared to be backing toward the sideline, which was impeding the receiver. The CB has a right to the ball and to the area, but he cannot block out the receiver with his body. It was a marginal call at best, and probably should have been a non call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...