Was Offensive Pass Interference the Correct Call on Derek Carr’s Second Interception?

In case you missed it during and after the game, Derek Carr wasn’t happy about the explanation of a offensive pass interference call given to him by the officiating crew on Sunday afternoon.

Some have suggested it should have been defensive pass interference or even no call at all. So let’s see what the NFL rule books says about the call in question.

First, let’s understand what the league considers pass interference. The rule reads as follows:

It is pass interference by either team when any act by a player more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders an eligible player’s opportunity to catch the ball… defensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

The image below shows the ball has left Carr’s had before contact, so that aspect of the play is confirmed by the CBS video. Furthermore, the defender obviously hindered the receiver from catching the ball as it was a near full-speed collision.

Now let’s look at what is permissible by both players when the ball is in the air – because contact, regardless of severity, doesn’t necessarily constitute pass interference.

Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference… [or] contact by a player who has gained position on an opponent in an attempt to catch the ball.

For what it’s worth, we already know that the contact was incidental. The defender was not looking where he was running, so he obviously didn’t intentionally run into the wide receiver. But that aspect of the call isn’t relevant to the determination of the correct call – and you’ll see why below.

We know that at least one player is competing for the ball. So incidental contact cannot be applied under the premise that neither player was competing for the ball. But what if both players are competing for the ball? By rule, incidental contact can legally take place when both players are competing for the ball.

So in order to argue that ‘no call’ would have been the correct call, you would have to make the case that the Kansas City defender was making a play on the ball (or had gained position and attempted to catch the ball) by running in the opposite direction of where the ball was being thrown. Technically, the Chiefs defender had position, but by rule he has to have gained position in attempt to catch the ball – which obviously didn’t happen.

So what about offensive pass interference? Did the officials get the call correct?

In order to get offensive pass interference, you’d have to make the determination that the offensive player was setting a pick and/or hindering the defender from catching the ball. Since the wide receiver obviously wasn’t setting a pick (the ball was being thrown to him), the only explanation for offensive pass interference would be that the wide receiver significantly hindered the Kansas City defender from an opportunity to make a play on the ball. Considering the defender was running in the wrong direction, it would seem that the wide receiver only helped the defender’s opportunity to make a play (kidding, but not really). The slot corner that was run over would have been 10 yards away from the reception by the time it happened had he not taken out the intended receiver.

For what it’s worth, one aspect of the pass interference rule that is often confused is that incidental contact with a wide receiver can happen – or can at least happen as long as the defender is looking back at the quarterback. But that’s not how the rule reads. The defender has to be competing for the ball in the air and in this case, the Kansas City defender wasn’t competing for the ball because he’s running in the wrong direction.

The only correct call on the play in question was defensive pass interference. And if the official was in any way confident in his call, he should have offered an explanation to Carr when he asked.

twitter: @raidersbeat