What are the rules around a receiver initiating contact?

Gladstone

It seemed like Rudolph ran right into Chancellor and Chancellor's contact after the hit was an effort to shed Rudolph and stay in the play.

What are the rules? If a receiver runs directly into the defender and initiates contact, can the defender do nothing at all?

section_332

That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball

sarktastic

Gladstone said:

It seemed like Rudolph ran right into Chancellor and Chancellor's contact after the hit was an effort to shed Rudolph and stay in the play.

What are the rules? If a receiver runs directly into the defender and initiates contact, can the defender do nothing at all?

Depends on the player, the teams playing and whether or not the right team has momentum in the game when the play happens.

Bob_C

section_332 said:

That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball

Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.

dnc

Bob_C said:

section_332 said:

That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball

Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.

I agree, I thought it was a good call.

Cam may be the player who's legacy changed the most thanks to Walsh's miss (well, besides Walsh). He was going to be the goat if Seattle lost that. Complete opposite from their first playoff game last year. Now his forced fumble will last longer in the memory banks.

section_332

Bob_C said:

section_332 said:

That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball

Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.

I can see that. But Rudolph engaged with him also. And when that happens, the 5 yard rule comes into play.

In the end it was only a 6 yard difference I think.

Bob_C

section_332 said:

Bob_C said:

section_332 said:

That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball

Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.

I can see that. But Rudolph engaged with him also. And when that happens, the 5 yard rule comes into play.

In the end it was only a 6 yard difference I think.

If you think it should have been illegal contact, then you are admitting it was pass interference. Ball was in the air, there is no illegal contact with ball in the air. Engaging is irrelevant also Ref saw Chancellors reaction and will always make the call he did when the defender is beaten or in a slightly disadvantaged position.

section_332

Bob_C said:

section_332 said:

Bob_C said:

section_332 said:

That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball

Actually that's not correct. Provided the ball is in the air is all that determines pass interference vs illegal contact or holding. Who intiates the contact hardly matters either, it's basically a block vs charge judgement call. Personally I feel the refs got it right, Chancellor was beat to the inside because he was cheating to the outside and out of position.

I can see that. But Rudolph engaged with him also. And when that happens, the 5 yard rule comes into play.

In the end it was only a 6 yard difference I think.

If you think it should have been illegal contact, then you are admitting it was pass interference. Ball was in the air, there is no illegal contact with ball in the air. Engaging is irrelevant also Ref saw Chancellors reaction and will always make the call he did when the defender is beaten or in a slightly disadvantaged position.

Ok. I'm convinced. Didn't think about ball already in the air.

Kaepsknee

section_332 said:

That should have been a illegal contact 5 yard penalty, not pass interference. White boy wasent making a play on the ball

The very next play after that should have answered your question.