music via: www.epidemicsou... A subscriber asked I take a look at the pick-play/rub-route concepts that have become so popular in football. Hope this helps!
9:22 to 9:41 My understanding of your explanation is that the referee must judge if it is the intent of the receiver on that play to take out a defender or multiple defenders, or his intent was to run a route to try and make a catch. If it was the former, it is an illegal pick play. Well, you can see at 3:31 that the receiver in question runs directly towards the defender. Then, when they are in contact, the receiver is leaned forward into him, clearly with the intent to push him backwards. And when you say of the defensive back at 3:32 "he's got his arms around the receiver," at that point it certainly looks like the receiver also has his arms around the DB, although it's harder to see since he has white sleeves on. At the very least, it's evident he's lowered his shoulder down and into the defender. After this, at 3:40, the receiver dives down to chop block the defender (one thing I've read a lot is that the DB was pulling down the receiver, but look again: watch 3:40 multiple times and tell me it looks like he's exerting enough force to pull him down, pay special attention to his elbows being fairly relaxed. Also if you set it to 0.25 speed you can see the DB for a few frames is completely off the ground, quite clearly being pushed). Additionally, the receiver never turns his head towards the quarterback for the entire play, but instead appears to look at Renfrow so he can get out of his way. Imagine that the intention of the receiver was indeed to attempt to run a route and catch the ball. Would he have dove down into the defender's legs or would he actually run a route and look at the quarterback? I give the refs the benefit of the doubt on the first questionable pick play touchdown of that game, as the receiver that ran the pick immediately turned around and appeared to be waiting for a pass, so it could feasibly be judged as an accident (despite the great acting job to fool the refs, this play was indeed an OPI and, from what I've seen, most people don't even try to argue that this play wasn't illegal). But in the second play, the intention of the receiver was absolutely and irrefutably to interfere with the DB, and it absolutely should have been caught by the ref. Additionally: check out this video: th-cam.com/video/uVmcfcTwmfQ/w-d-xo.html at 1:39 he starts talking about the pick plays and you can see other angles and higher quality recordings of the plays, but specifically at 2:18 you can see the receiver takes quite a few steps downfield before contact is made and the way it happens is that the DB spreads his arms out wide and the receiver runs himself into his chest, THEN the defender's arms are around him. Then the defender takes a few steps backwards because he lost his balance (you can see his entire body is tilted backwards) and the receiver keeps pushing forward and lowers his entire torso into it, losing his own balance and falling forward while the defender's arms basically sit loosely on top of him. The guy in the video says the defender tackles his receiver but it's just simply untrue if you actually look at it. Now, the question is about who initiated contact. Or is it? The rule in question here is as follows: "ARTICLE 8. b. Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents. It is not offensive pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-IV, V, X, XV and XVI): [There are 3 options here with scenarios that are not OPI, but the first refers to an ineligible player blocking 1-3 yards downfield and the other two only apply after the pass is thrown so none are applicable to this situation]" So let's look at this step by step: *Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player...* Now, how large is the neutral zone then? The rule states: "ARTICLE 1. a. The neutral zone is the space between the two scrimmage lines extended to the sidelines. (Rule 2-21-2) Its width is equal to the length of the ball." The contact was definitely at least a few feet downfield (it may look closer from the angle at 3:31 but look again: at the moment they make contact, the receiver's feet are behind him at the line of scrimmage while he is leaning forward into the defender. The video linked above also shows it's much farther than it looks from this angle). A football is 11 inches long, and the width of the neutral zone as a whole is defined as the length of the ball, so it's 5.5 inches beyond and behind the line of scrimmage. This is a surprisingly short length, to be honest. I didn't know it was that small until I just looked that rule up, since everyone says it's 1 or 2 or 3 yards downfield when they're defending Clemson but this is the only definition of "neutral zone" in the NCAA rulebook, it's right there in black and white: 5.5 inches. *It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents* This right here might as well say "Clemson ran an illegal pick play" in the middle of the NCAA rulebook. The receiver runs directly into the DB with his arms outstretched in front of him just as the DB does. You could say here that they both ran into each other, but "it is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents," so you can think of it as being reversed from interception calls: if a receiver and defender both come down with equal control of the ball, the tiebreaker is that the receiver gets it. If a receiver and defender both run into each other, the tiebreaker is that "it is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents." This means the defender can legally get in the way of a receiver but it is the receiver's job to move around the defense to get open. So if he were to, say, lower his shoulder and rush headlong into a defender that's in his way and chop block him into another defender, that would be offensive pass interference by the letter of the law of NCAA football. TL;DR: The Clemson receiver runs directly downfield into an Alabama defender beyond the neutral zone with no intention of running a route and chop blocks that defender into another defender, letting another receiver get wide open, which is strictly by the NCAA rules an act of offensive interference. Even if there is some loophole that could possibly make this play legal, it's a dirty play that shows how low Clemson's confidence was that they could beat Alabama without it (which they couldn't) and it's downright disgraceful that they would run pick plays in practice in preparation for this game, and they clearly practiced it quite a bit. I know this is long but I've been arguing this for over a year and decided I'd finally do some serious homework this time.
This was a great video. In my humble opinion, on the last play shown, I cannot for the life of me see how a referee could gauge the intent of the player they called the PI on. He was running a legitimate route, not near the other receiver and the defenders RAN INTO HIM. This is my beef with the rule. In this video, all of the plays shown have the receiver that is called for the offensive PI in an active running player participating in the play. This rule can also be used against a player that is passively "out of the play", and is run into by the defender.
Saban/Alabama got Clemson 'back' in their last meeting.. Semi Finals of playoffs. Where Da'Ron Payne had intercepted the ball and was rewarded for being put on offense at the goal line. Alabama runs a 'rub' (or pick depending on how you judge it) and the big boy, Da'Ron Payne catches the ball for a TD. That was the ultimate middle finger to Clemson for winning a NC using those plays lol. In Bama's case the game was over before that was run but it still was a fun thing to watch. Anytime your freakishly big and athletic Defensive Tackle is put in as a receiver .. it's pretty cool. :)
Clemson initiated the contact by running directly into the defender. The Defensive player moved his hands up against the oncoming rush of the offensive player who basically TACKLED him. You're giving the refs too much credit, just say sometimes they call it and sometimes they don't. The exact same play can be called offensive interference in one instance and not in the other.
In the Clemson game, I think the offensive player iniated the contact, certainly the interfering contact. That the defenders hands were up makes little difference, the CU player dove into his man's body and pushed. To borrow an additional basketball flourish, what are we expecting the cb to do? Flop? At the goal line? In the NC game? I get that they can switch, but the existence of an alternative strategy (with its own difficulties) does not make this play legal. Bad call in my opinion. Roll Tide. Enjoy your videos.
I think the NCAA knows that they blew that call but they stood by their decision in order to preserve the integrity of the game. You only get a split second to make that decision. Those plays should all be reviewable. They made the right call in the Georgia/Auburn game. www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/12/2/16728188/auburn-georgia-pick-play-penalty
I guess, but which part is it that you are saying that was speculative? That the interfering contact was initiated by the Clemson player? Do you think that the Bama DB interfered first? Lets speculate.
I agree, seems like he had his hands up to try to work himself out of the contact, whether he trips or not, him lowering his head is what makes this play so tough to let go especially in this scenario.
Man, thank you so much for explaining that,. I was wondering how in the world is that aloud. Daron Payne touchdown catch against Clemson CFP 2018 seem like it was a pick play. I'm glad it was a TD because I'm roll tide all the way. Could you explain that TD by him, because the person I saw beside him look like as if he made contact with the defender in which cause Daron Payne to be open.
Was the player supposedly interfered with on the Daron Payne play in coverage, or was he creeping up towards the line defending the run? Number 43 for Clemson, a linebacker, has crossed the Bama LOS and is eyeing the play fake. I think that is why that was not, arguably, a pick. It was a block of a guy trying to tackle the RB. He wasnt in coverage, at least yet.
What I don't understand if you're the DB and the reciever is running directly at you and Watson is rolling to that side if you dont put your hands up to try and shed what looks like a block , Watson walks into the endzone. If you put your hands up to shed what looks like a block but Watson throws it , it gives the reciever the right to continue with his block and get the other reciever open. Seems like a no win situation.
This just got posted on a Rutgers football board.. as we have been involved in a couple interesting pick plays recently. Great video! Sad to see refs still getting it wrong. Big Ten refs are awful this year for some reason, and I don't mean just to Rutgers.
I thought DB had a right to jam reciever at LOS. If he doesn't put his hands up and Watson runs it as a QB sweep. He cant get off the block and Watson walks in. BS call.
That was an illegal play!! It was a pick play, when it happened I was with my best friend who is a bama fan and I’m a Florida fan, immediately stood up and yelled flag and nothing happened I was mad!! Why because I’m a fan of football played the game since I was a kid til high school I want to see great football without stupid rigging!! And I don’t like Dabo he is a coach like bill and like Pete carrol!! Even the defense was confused and said it in the press conference why this wasn’t right, ok on another topic, Clemson beat bama again but what happened when they did right after they was caught giving their players PEDs!! Ok so my theory with football nowadays is they was tired of bama winning because they sport becomes boring and that losses money and viewership!! Anything with money tied to it is a motive to rig sports!! Nba doesn’t and don’t get in trouble because it’s not illegal to rig your own events
Nick nine times out of ten will... especially on the goal line in man or some form of man concept such as a sink coverage or zero.. will banjo ( or in and out call) those receivers..there's no way to get picked.. you got to keep your Deb's off the same level.. good vid brother..
I thought Clemson's third touchdown was more of an illegal pick play. Then after reviewing 10 times it may have looked like Humphrey did help initiate some contact but the Clemson reciever did sell it well.
In my experience and from everything I know and as soon as I seen as well as bama player threw their hands because it was a pick play or rub! Rules are rules and for whatever reason those rules change depending on the team and stakes! I don’t like it! Similar to the catch rule! That’s should’ve been called and it shouldn’t have been a touchdown! I’m not a bama fan at all, but I hate watching bad football! Like the Clemson vs Ohio state!! The catch that wasn’t a catch the beginning of the game with the coin toss, the targeting call, makes me think they started rigging the playoffs like the nba! It’s all big money
Great learning experience watching this video. I love understanding this stuff and then being able to explain it to my wife during the game, and her thinking I’m all football savvy and stuff (which I am really). Thanks again
KnoxSUX it’s the same thing man. It’s always going to be the intent of picking when you run those plays. But at the same time defenders should know that’s probably going to happen and switch players
9:22 to 9:41
My understanding of your explanation is that the referee must judge if it is the intent of the receiver on that play to take out a defender or multiple defenders, or his intent was to run a route to try and make a catch. If it was the former, it is an illegal pick play.
Well, you can see at 3:31 that the receiver in question runs directly towards the defender. Then, when they are in contact, the receiver is leaned forward into him, clearly with the intent to push him backwards. And when you say of the defensive back at 3:32 "he's got his arms around the receiver," at that point it certainly looks like the receiver also has his arms around the DB, although it's harder to see since he has white sleeves on. At the very least, it's evident he's lowered his shoulder down and into the defender. After this, at 3:40, the receiver dives down to chop block the defender (one thing I've read a lot is that the DB was pulling down the receiver, but look again: watch 3:40 multiple times and tell me it looks like he's exerting enough force to pull him down, pay special attention to his elbows being fairly relaxed. Also if you set it to 0.25 speed you can see the DB for a few frames is completely off the ground, quite clearly being pushed). Additionally, the receiver never turns his head towards the quarterback for the entire play, but instead appears to look at Renfrow so he can get out of his way.
Imagine that the intention of the receiver was indeed to attempt to run a route and catch the ball. Would he have dove down into the defender's legs or would he actually run a route and look at the quarterback?
I give the refs the benefit of the doubt on the first questionable pick play touchdown of that game, as the receiver that ran the pick immediately turned around and appeared to be waiting for a pass, so it could feasibly be judged as an accident (despite the great acting job to fool the refs, this play was indeed an OPI and, from what I've seen, most people don't even try to argue that this play wasn't illegal). But in the second play, the intention of the receiver was absolutely and irrefutably to interfere with the DB, and it absolutely should have been caught by the ref.
Additionally: check out this video: th-cam.com/video/uVmcfcTwmfQ/w-d-xo.html
at 1:39 he starts talking about the pick plays and you can see other angles and higher quality recordings of the plays, but specifically at 2:18 you can see the receiver takes quite a few steps downfield before contact is made and the way it happens is that the DB spreads his arms out wide and the receiver runs himself into his chest, THEN the defender's arms are around him. Then the defender takes a few steps backwards because he lost his balance (you can see his entire body is tilted backwards) and the receiver keeps pushing forward and lowers his entire torso into it, losing his own balance and falling forward while the defender's arms basically sit loosely on top of him. The guy in the video says the defender tackles his receiver but it's just simply untrue if you actually look at it.
Now, the question is about who initiated contact. Or is it? The rule in question here is as follows:
"ARTICLE 8. b. Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents. It is not offensive pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-IV, V, X, XV and XVI):
[There are 3 options here with scenarios that are not OPI, but the first refers to an ineligible player blocking 1-3 yards downfield and the other two only apply after the pass is thrown so none are applicable to this situation]"
So let's look at this step by step:
*Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player...*
Now, how large is the neutral zone then? The rule states:
"ARTICLE 1. a. The neutral zone is the space between the two scrimmage lines extended to the sidelines. (Rule 2-21-2) Its width is equal to the length of the ball."
The contact was definitely at least a few feet downfield (it may look closer from the angle at 3:31 but look again: at the moment they make contact, the receiver's feet are behind him at the line of scrimmage while he is leaning forward into the defender. The video linked above also shows it's much farther than it looks from this angle). A football is 11 inches long, and the width of the neutral zone as a whole is defined as the length of the ball, so it's 5.5 inches beyond and behind the line of scrimmage. This is a surprisingly short length, to be honest. I didn't know it was that small until I just looked that rule up, since everyone says it's 1 or 2 or 3 yards downfield when they're defending Clemson but this is the only definition of "neutral zone" in the NCAA rulebook, it's right there in black and white: 5.5 inches.
*It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents*
This right here might as well say "Clemson ran an illegal pick play" in the middle of the NCAA rulebook. The receiver runs directly into the DB with his arms outstretched in front of him just as the DB does. You could say here that they both ran into each other, but "it is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents," so you can think of it as being reversed from interception calls: if a receiver and defender both come down with equal control of the ball, the tiebreaker is that the receiver gets it. If a receiver and defender both run into each other, the tiebreaker is that "it is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents." This means the defender can legally get in the way of a receiver but it is the receiver's job to move around the defense to get open. So if he were to, say, lower his shoulder and rush headlong into a defender that's in his way and chop block him into another defender, that would be offensive pass interference by the letter of the law of NCAA football.
TL;DR: The Clemson receiver runs directly downfield into an Alabama defender beyond the neutral zone with no intention of running a route and chop blocks that defender into another defender, letting another receiver get wide open, which is strictly by the NCAA rules an act of offensive interference. Even if there is some loophole that could possibly make this play legal, it's a dirty play that shows how low Clemson's confidence was that they could beat Alabama without it (which they couldn't) and it's downright disgraceful that they would run pick plays in practice in preparation for this game, and they clearly practiced it quite a bit.
I know this is long but I've been arguing this for over a year and decided I'd finally do some serious homework this time.
holy moly
This was a great video. In my humble opinion, on the last play shown, I cannot for the life of me see how a referee could gauge the intent of the player they called the PI on. He was running a legitimate route, not near the other receiver and the defenders RAN INTO HIM. This is my beef with the rule. In this video, all of the plays shown have the receiver that is called for the offensive PI in an active running player participating in the play. This rule can also be used against a player that is passively "out of the play", and is run into by the defender.
Saban/Alabama got Clemson 'back' in their last meeting.. Semi Finals of playoffs. Where Da'Ron Payne had intercepted the ball and was rewarded for being put on offense at the goal line. Alabama runs a 'rub' (or pick depending on how you judge it) and the big boy, Da'Ron Payne catches the ball for a TD.
That was the ultimate middle finger to Clemson for winning a NC using those plays lol. In Bama's case the game was over before that was run but it still was a fun thing to watch. Anytime your freakishly big and athletic Defensive Tackle is put in as a receiver .. it's pretty cool. :)
Then what happened the next year..
@@davidkinard8461 Clemson won their last ever championship in football :(
Hell he tackled that man
They did it twice
Clemson initiated the contact by running directly into the defender. The Defensive player moved his hands up against the oncoming rush of the offensive player who basically TACKLED him. You're giving the refs too much credit, just say sometimes they call it and sometimes they don't. The exact same play can be called offensive interference in one instance and not in the other.
Clemson Wideout clearly pushes himself into the corner... pretty clear. Happen twice that game.
uh no. This man shows a slow motion video of the play, literally shows the corner engaging first, and that's what you pulled from this?
In the Clemson game, I think the offensive player iniated the contact, certainly the interfering contact. That the defenders hands were up makes little difference, the CU player dove into his man's body and pushed.
To borrow an additional basketball flourish, what are we expecting the cb to do? Flop? At the goal line? In the NC game?
I get that they can switch, but the existence of an alternative strategy (with its own difficulties) does not make this play legal. Bad call in my opinion.
Roll Tide. Enjoy your videos.
I think the NCAA knows that they blew that call but they stood by their decision in order to preserve the integrity of the game. You only get a split second to make that decision. Those plays should all be reviewable. They made the right call in the Georgia/Auburn game. www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/12/2/16728188/auburn-georgia-pick-play-penalty
you are exactly right Billy
I guess, but which part is it that you are saying that was speculative? That the interfering contact was initiated by the Clemson player? Do you think that the Bama DB interfered first? Lets speculate.
I agree, seems like he had his hands up to try to work himself out of the contact, whether he trips or not, him lowering his head is what makes this play so tough to let go especially in this scenario.
Starting to see it in HS as well. As a DB coach I absolutely hate it lol, but I welcome the challenge. Thanks for the videos
Man, thank you so much for explaining that,. I was wondering how in the world is that aloud. Daron Payne touchdown catch against Clemson CFP 2018 seem like it was a pick play. I'm glad it was a TD because I'm roll tide all the way. Could you explain that TD by him, because the person I saw beside him look like as if he made contact with the defender in which cause Daron Payne to be open.
Was the player supposedly interfered with on the Daron Payne play in coverage, or was he creeping up towards the line defending the run? Number 43 for Clemson, a linebacker, has crossed the Bama LOS and is eyeing the play fake. I think that is why that was not, arguably, a pick. It was a block of a guy trying to tackle the RB. He wasnt in coverage, at least yet.
What I don't understand if you're the DB and the reciever is running directly at you and Watson is rolling to that side if you dont put your hands up to try and shed what looks like a block , Watson walks into the endzone. If you put your hands up to shed what looks like a block but Watson throws it , it gives the reciever the right to continue with his block and get the other reciever open. Seems like a no win situation.
3:33 That's what we like to call Defensive Holding. If you wanna yell and scream about a pick play, then maybe you shouldn't be guilty of holding.
This is a rub play ran correctly .. th-cam.com/video/b2-kNqSM_Qw/w-d-xo.html
If anything the CB should have gotten a penalty for wrapping his arms around the WR and pulling him to the ground.
“Is he trying to gain a advantage by rubbing someone off
This just got posted on a Rutgers football board.. as we have been involved in a couple interesting pick plays recently. Great video! Sad to see refs still getting it wrong. Big Ten refs are awful this year for some reason, and I don't mean just to Rutgers.
Clemson player lowered his shoulder
Calm down Nick
I thought DB had a right to jam reciever at LOS. If he doesn't put his hands up and Watson runs it as a QB sweep. He cant get off the block and Watson walks in. BS call.
Ref was born in S.C!
Can we lead with the fact that there is no "Illegal Pick Play" penalty in football? It's either offensive pass interference or nothing.
Defensive man was trying to play off the block, the reciever lowered his shoulder as to block.
That was an illegal play!! It was a pick play, when it happened I was with my best friend who is a bama fan and I’m a Florida fan, immediately stood up and yelled flag and nothing happened I was mad!! Why because I’m a fan of football played the game since I was a kid til high school I want to see great football without stupid rigging!! And I don’t like Dabo he is a coach like bill and like Pete carrol!! Even the defense was confused and said it in the press conference why this wasn’t right, ok on another topic, Clemson beat bama again but what happened when they did right after they was caught giving their players PEDs!! Ok so my theory with football nowadays is they was tired of bama winning because they sport becomes boring and that losses money and viewership!! Anything with money tied to it is a motive to rig sports!! Nba doesn’t and don’t get in trouble because it’s not illegal to rig your own events
Nick nine times out of ten will... especially on the goal line in man or some form of man concept such as a sink coverage or zero.. will banjo ( or in and out call) those receivers..there's no way to get picked.. you got to keep your Deb's off the same level.. good vid brother..
I thought Clemson's third touchdown was more of an illegal pick play. Then after reviewing 10 times it may have looked like Humphrey did help initiate some contact but the Clemson reciever did sell it well.
Both was
Ty.
This guy is awesome explaining football...need to be on ESPN
Josh McDaniels’s whole career.
Bama was cheated out a Back to Back titles. Plain and simple.
In my experience and from everything I know and as soon as I seen as well as bama player threw their hands because it was a pick play or rub! Rules are rules and for whatever reason those rules change depending on the team and stakes! I don’t like it! Similar to the catch rule! That’s should’ve been called and it shouldn’t have been a touchdown! I’m not a bama fan at all, but I hate watching bad football! Like the Clemson vs Ohio state!! The catch that wasn’t a catch the beginning of the game with the coin toss, the targeting call, makes me think they started rigging the playoffs like the nba! It’s all big money
Great learning experience watching this video. I love understanding this stuff and then being able to explain it to my wife during the game, and her thinking I’m all football savvy and stuff (which I am really). Thanks again
There is no defending that
Illegal and was chosen not to be called. Such BS!
A rub is not a pick. Rub=legal.
KnoxSUX it’s the same thing man. It’s always going to be the intent of picking when you run those plays. But at the same time defenders should know that’s probably going to happen and switch players
This is football not basketball.
@@crimsonkings205 correct. Totally legal
They were playing man coverage and he never actually touched the man that didn’t cover
are you blind dude?
@@redjack7296 he didn’t touch the man that was covering him in man coverage