Who thought the OPI call on Purdue was correct?

MaxyJR1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
7,603
Reaction score
376
Points
83
And the one angle we don't see is the one the flag throwing official had. (looking straight down the goal line at ground level and even with the play). As we saw in the slow mo replay, the defenders upper body torqued backwards due to the push-off. I'm sure the backward torque the official saw was even more pronounced than the one we see from above and behind the play.
Judgement calls where the Official is the only one with the needed angle are hard to dispute. From his angle he is the only one to see where the contact is and by the way the defenders head dips, I believe the WR catches the face mask when pushing off. Now the argument can be made that it's too technical of a call, but that is for the B1G to decide and communicate to the coach and officials.
 

atsgopher

Active member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
553
Reaction score
53
Points
28
I have to admit when the OPI call was made it looked questionable based on the angle of the replay camera. Having now seen a better view of what the referee actually saw I now agree it was a good call. Anybody else changed their mind after seeing a different view?
I see what you mean. I still feel like it was too minor to call, because, I prefer football with a bit more physicality. Yet, if the same foul is called on the D, then refs should call that on the O as well.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,306
Reaction score
1,575
Points
113
I see what you mean. I still feel like it was too minor to call, because, I prefer football with a bit more physicality. Yet, if the same foul is called on the D, then refs should call that on the O as well.
I’d prefer a no call generally because if that little contact is pass interference it is opening a can of worms that cause referees to become incredibly inconsistent at enforcement
 

fmlizard

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
944
Points
113
Since the Gopher defender #2 (whether Phillip Howard or Tanner Morgan) was almost certainly faster than the Purdue TE, the only possible way he could double his separation was to use his size and reach advantage to push him square in the chest. Otherwise the defender is right on him in good coverage.

I think that ref didn't get enough credit for making a really good call.
 

highwayman

Knows Less Than Coaching Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
6,524
Reaction score
322
Points
83
Since the Gopher defender #2 (whether Phillip Howard or Tanner Morgan) was almost certainly faster than the Purdue TE, the only possible way he could double his separation was to use his size and reach advantage to push him square in the chest. Otherwise the defender is right on him in good coverage.

I think that ref didn't get enough credit for making a really good call.
The call was made by the referee that was closest to the play and had the best angle. In fact, he had the best vantage point of anyone in the entire stadium, including any camera. That's how you make the call.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
15,608
Reaction score
2,563
Points
113
Since the Gopher defender #2 (whether Phillip Howard or Tanner Morgan) was almost certainly faster than the Purdue TE, the only possible way he could double his separation was to use his size and reach advantage to push him square in the chest. Otherwise the defender is right on him in good coverage.

I think that ref didn't get enough credit for making a really good call.
And generally ... refs don't just willynilly call OPI like they do DPI... usually gotta be big, and it looks like it was.
 

Great Plains Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,483
Reaction score
97
Points
48
I have to admit when the OPI call was made it looked questionable based on the angle of the replay camera. Having now seen a better view of what the referee actually saw I now agree it was a good call. Anybody else changed their mind after seeing a different view?
There was a clip on the Internet that clearly showed the Purdue receiver stiff-arming the MN defender, and the Gopher tried to push his arm away. This happened close to the goal line and was not shown on almost every replay of the action. The Gopher lost stride and the gap between them lengthened. The call was correct, though sports talk radio around the country made it an issue.
 

jblass

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
368
Reaction score
211
Points
43
There was a clip on the Internet that clearly showed the Purdue receiver stiff-arming the MN defender, and the Gopher tried to push his arm away. This happened close to the goal line and was not shown on almost every replay of the action. The Gopher lost stride and the gap between them lengthened. The call was correct, though sports talk radio around the country made it an issue.
It was really annoying hearing all those commentators talking about how Purdue got the shaft on the call. I wonder if any of them came to a different conclusion after seeing the push off. I have seen no retractions on their comments myself.
 

GoGophersUMN

Active member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
964
Reaction score
172
Points
43
It could have gone either way. It's not a bad call but it also wouldn't have been a bad no-call if they didn't call it.

I'm glad they tried to keep the rules consistent throughout the game. The rules shouldn't change in the last few minutes because the refs are too afraid to throw a flag. If he wanted to be 100% sure he wouldn't get called for a penalty he could have just not touched the defender at all.

I also wish they'd call things like this way more often. It seems like defensive penalties like DPI, targeting, etc. have been getting called more and more over the past 5-10 years and giving offenses an advantage. It's a lot more fun to watch when the rules go both ways.
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,447
Points
113
Justin Jefferson just got called for an even weaker offensive PI call against the Jaguars.
 

kix4kix

Active member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
223
Reaction score
79
Points
28
I always look at it like could the catch have been made without the "foul"
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,447
Points
113
I thought that was the right call after seeing the second look at it during the game.
Completely disagree. He barely touched the guy. The defender fell off on his own not due to jefferson pushing.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
15,608
Reaction score
2,563
Points
113
Completely disagree. He barely touched the guy. The defender fell off on his own not due to jefferson pushing.
I guess if you ignore pushing the guy then he 'just fell over'.
 

MaxyJR1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
7,603
Reaction score
376
Points
83
Completely disagree. He barely touched the guy. The defender fell off on his own not due to jefferson pushing.
My feeling is if you put your hands on the guy you put the play in the hands of the official's judgement. Jefferson's IMO was more egregious than Purdue player. Jefferson puts two hand on guys back which allowed him to go in the opposite direction of the defender.
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,447
Points
113
My feeling is if you put your hands on the guy you put the play in the hands of the official's judgement. Jefferson's IMO was more egregious than Purdue player. Jefferson puts two hand on guys back which allowed him to go in the opposite direction of the defender.
You realize it was their feet getting tangled that caused the stumble, right? There's no way a gentle hand on the db's back would make him stumble like that. If that touch is OPI, then there's OPI on every single play in the NFL. That said, I can see how the ref watching that, depending on the angle, could have thought it was OPI because of the stumble happening right as Jefferson pulls his hands back.

 
Last edited:

RodentRampage

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
9,410
Reaction score
74
Points
48
It's like driving 5 miles over the speed limit. Maybe most of the time you don't get pulled over for it, but it's no use complaining if you do.
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,862
Reaction score
1,447
Points
113
It's like driving 5 miles over the speed limit. Maybe most of the time you don't get pulled over for it, but it's no use complaining if you do.
Change that to 8, 9, or 10 mph over the speed limit and I might agree with you.
I know quite a few cops and I don't know any that would pull anyone over for going 5 over :)
I did get pulled over for going 7 over in a 55 once. They didn't write me a ticket though. Probably were just fishing for DWIs.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
15,608
Reaction score
2,563
Points
113
You realize it was their feet getting tangled that caused the stumble, right? There's no way a gentle hand on the db's back would make him stumble like that. If that touch is OPI, then there's OPI on every single play in the NFL. That said, I can see how the ref watching that, depending on the angle, could have thought it was OPI because of the stumble happening right as Jefferson pulls his hands back.


Maybe it wasn't gentle....
 
Top Bottom