|
Replies: 24
| visibility 1703
|
Valley Legend [12999]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
|
Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
4
Nov 3, 2025, 2:15 PM
|
|
n NCAA Football, is offensive pass interference likely to be called in this scenario: The DB has inside leverage and the ball is underthrown behind the DB. Prior to the ball arriving the receiver shoves the DB to the ground.
Yes — in that scenario, offensive pass interference (OPI) is very likely to be called.
Here’s why, step by step:
Defensive positioning (inside leverage)
The defensive back (DB) has inside position, meaning he’s between the receiver and the quarterback. That positioning gives the DB a legitimate right to that space — he’s not impeding the receiver illegally.
Underthrown pass
When a pass is underthrown, receivers sometimes have to slow down or come back to the ball. That often causes contact, and officials must decide who initiated it and whether it was a legitimate attempt to play the ball.
The shove
If, before the ball arrives, the receiver extends his arms and pushes the DB to the ground to create separation, that’s classic offensive pass interference.
Key factors:
Timing: Contact before the ball arrives = OPI if it creates separation.
Force: A shove that displaces or knocks down the defender is excessive and not incidental.
Intent: The receiver is not making a genuine play on the ball but rather clearing the defender out of the way.
Rule reference:
NCAA Rule 7-3-8: "Offensive pass interference is contact beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to play the ball."
The shove you described squarely fits that definition.
In short:
✅ The DB’s position is legal.
✅ The pass being underthrown doesn’t give the receiver the right to push off.
✅ A shove that knocks the DB down before the ball arrives = automatic OPI every time.
The only situation where officials might not call it is if the contact is mutual, minor, or if the ball is clearly uncatchable — but from your description, it sounds like an obvious foul.
|
|
|
|
 |
Solid Orange [1343]
TigerPulse: 93%
28
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
1
Nov 3, 2025, 2:20 PM
|
|
I didn't watch the game because I was playing golf but didn't they walk into the endzone for a 2 point conversion to win the game? I guess you gotta pick the hill you want to die on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [41068]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 23042
Joined: 2003
|
Because The Pathetic Defense of The 2Pt Conversion and 180 Other Sad Defense
2
Nov 3, 2025, 2:23 PM
|
|
Actions are TRUE does not make a HORRIBLE performance by the Officiating Crew FALSE. This is not a binary action.
You still prosecute a bank robber for armed robbery even if you are going to prosecute them on a higher charge of murder.
TNET is wayyy to binary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9816]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
Re: Because The Pathetic Defense of The 2Pt Conversion and 180 Other Sad Defense
Nov 3, 2025, 3:03 PM
|
|
Yes, I disagreed with the call (should have been a no call imho), but they still had to score a touchdown & conversion to beat us. Neither play was challenged by our defense, not to mention all the other busted plays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7828]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [842]
TigerPulse: 83%
23
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
3
Nov 3, 2025, 3:01 PM
[ in reply to Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference..... ] |
|
Hey genius. If the offensive pass interference wasn't called it would have been Clemson's ball and no Duke td score and no 2 point play. Guess you have to live with your stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9816]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
Nov 3, 2025, 3:07 PM
|
|
He’s saying that we should have shaken off the call that went against us and stopped at least one of the next two plays. We didn’t come close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2680]
TigerPulse: 86%
33
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
Nov 3, 2025, 2:21 PM
|
|
It was most likely defensive holding early in the route. The DB was grabbing the reciever at about 7-10yd mark. If that had been called it would have 1st and goal st about the 12 yd line?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [607]
TigerPulse: 91%
21
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
3
Nov 3, 2025, 2:34 PM
|
|
Not holding, but guys were grabbing... the WR as well as the defender..... and actually the WR made the first contact.... it was just a bad call, and what made it worse was that the flag came in after the play. I agree with Dabo..... Refs have no accountability and want everything done in private... that is so basically they can come up with the narrative of the call when practically 99.9% of people with a brain and who have eyes knew that if it was a penalty if was on the receiver.
If you watch the receiver, you can tell by his actions that he didn't think there was a call on the play and that he screwed up.... Simply a bad call and that guy has no business officiation high school ball, much less D! college ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [842]
TigerPulse: 83%
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [598]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Icon [157974]
TigerPulse: 100%
68
Posts: 36591
Joined: 2010
|
Ive got AIs back
2
Nov 3, 2025, 2:21 PM
|
|
because AI has mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26856]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 15416
Joined: 2000
|
Allen Iverson?***
2
Nov 3, 2025, 2:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [40206]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
|
Gonna change my username to BigAI31®***
2
Nov 3, 2025, 2:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Icon [157974]
TigerPulse: 100%
68
Posts: 36591
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Icon [157974]
TigerPulse: 100%
68
Posts: 36591
Joined: 2010
|
^ This made me snort.
Nov 3, 2025, 9:43 PM
|
|
Good work, self.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1609]
TigerPulse: 84%
31
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
1
Nov 3, 2025, 3:33 PM
|
|
You do know that ChatGPT is not "thinking," right? It's a fancy autocomplete. It searches either its memory or google, predicts what someone would say there, and then says it. I'd be very curious how to phrased your prompt. You also certainly colored its response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [598]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
THE RULES SAY it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
2
Nov 3, 2025, 4:42 PM
|
|
Correct regarding rule 7, section 3, article 8, subsection B. The defender has the same right to catch the ball.
"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."
THIS CLEARLY DID NOT HAPPEN.
Also rule 7, section 3, article 9, subsection G applies:
"g. Each player has territorial rights, and incidental contact is ruled under
“attempt to reach…the pass’’ in Rule 7-3-8. If opponents who are beyond
the line collide while moving toward the pass, a foul by one or both
players occurs only if intent to impede the opponent is obvious. It is pass
interference only if a catchable forward pass is involved."
The WR impeded the DBs ability to make a play on the ball BY PUSHING HIM TO THE GROUND. It can reasonably be stated that the pass was UNCATCHABLE as well. Neither player was close enough to catch that ball.
Bottom line ... it was a HORRENDOUS CALL...possibly THE WORST in college football history. I have been watching for 50 years. Dabo was right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13396]
TigerPulse: 94%
48
Posts: 16467
Joined: 2021
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
Nov 3, 2025, 5:09 PM
|
|
Any response from ChatGPT that involves a reasonably complicated answer to a simple question should not just be ignored, but moreso taken as back-assward wring.
Take the opposite of what ChatGPT advises as being the correct answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6476]
TigerPulse: 89%
40
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
Nov 3, 2025, 5:15 PM
|
|
Your supposed to say “that play didn’t cost us the game”
Which is odd, because Duke’s defense was as porous as ours. Couldn’t stop a crossing route just like Clemson. It was as even a game as could have been possible played. And it came down to that flag , so an argument could be made that whether offensive or defensive interference, the ref decided the game.
It was an entertaining game and I didn’t want to see the 5 Duke fans sitting above me to leave happy after making their snide comments about Clemson for 3.5 hours.
So yeah, I was pissed when the flag was thrown
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2140]
TigerPulse: 90%
32
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
Nov 3, 2025, 5:17 PM
|
|
The defensive player had inside leverage because he was holding the crap out of the offensive player. DPI was the wrong call, a defensive penalty was not the wrong call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8864]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
1
Nov 3, 2025, 5:19 PM
|
|
Evidently Chat Gpt has not been versed on the ACC rule book which plainly states that the call always goes in favor of the school from North Carolina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [7]
TigerPulse: 47%
1
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
Nov 3, 2025, 9:18 PM
|
|
I know it's our fault for our defence playing terribly, but we would have won, but the refs failed us. How are they allowed to do that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4828]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
Nov 3, 2025, 9:29 PM
|
|
When I add in that the defender grabs the face back of the receiver, forcibly pulling his head down and momentum into the defender, after the ball is in the air - I get a different answer. I took the orange lens off the screen though in order to be able to read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [122]
TigerPulse: 86%
11
|
Re: Even ChatGPT says it was Offensive Pass Interference.....
Nov 4, 2025, 6:34 AM
|
|
Oh ChatGPT said it’s true. Send this to the acc maybe they’ll give dabo money back
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 24
| visibility 1703
|
|
|
50
