Pick Plays

[Thanatos 2,847]

What do you guys think about this play? (Not the one in the gif, persay, just pick plays in general).

 

 

A pick play are one of those things that is technically a penalty but is almost never called. Offenses set up schemes just to do it. The game winning pick in the SB was off of an attempted pick play by the Seahawks. Even in the above gif, you could argue that James Jones(?)- I think that's #89- was just running his route and Kurt Coleman just happened to be in his way.

 

Are we okay with "Do it as long as you don't get caught?" Or is the pick play something that should just be a penalty every time?

 

The Packers, for example, are very good at this. Noticed it yesterday on several of their passing plays. It was never called, and pretty much every time you could have argued that the WR was just running his route, but the play was clearly designed to give the WR a chance to run into the defender and spring another player.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Thanatos19

[BwareDWare94 723]

I think it's a loophole in a rule that teams obviously exploit, and while Green Bay does it a lot, New England does it on almost every single pass play.

 

It should be a penalty because it does one of two things: 1. Forces contact that derails a defender or 2. Forces defenders to back off and allow a guy to get open because someone nearly ran into them. It's dirty. It should be called. Why it never is is beyond me.

[oochymp 2,393]

if you called a pick every time a receiver ran into a defender who was covering someone else you'd never be able to run crossing routes, if it's a play like the one you posted where it seems pretty obvious that the receiver is just trying to block the defender then that should be called, but if you have legitimate crossing routes and the defender isn't paying enough attention to get out of the way then I have no issue

[BwareDWare94 723]

if you called a pick every time a receiver ran into a defender who was covering someone else you'd never be able to run crossing routes, if it's a play like the one you posted where it seems pretty obvious that the receiver is just trying to block the defender then that should be called, but if you have legitimate crossing routes and the defender isn't paying enough attention to get out of the way then I have no issue

 

That's the exact loophole I was talking about. Teams shouldn't be allowed to exploit that. The attention is to "block" but you slow down or make sure re-route the defender without contact, which should still be considered a pick. That is cheap and should be flagged.

[oochymp 2,393]

so you would prohibit offenses from running plays that include intersecting route combinations?

[BwareDWare94 723]

so you would prohibit offenses from running plays that include intersecting route combinations?

When they intersect practically side by side, yes. That's a pick.

[butta54 371]

Plays like that create a natural "rub" which for all purposes in football is legal.

 

To run directly into a defender kamikaze style is an obvious penalty, but to run and block a defender prior to the ball being thrown is offensive interference. More times than not you have what you saw in the gif...a receiver running a route into coverage while a defender tries to go over the top to cover them.

 

IMO no this should not be changed. The obvious illegal plays that aren't a route at all should be called what it is which is OPI........but for the rest it is part of the game. It isn't an unstoppable play. As mentioned in the SB we saw the play can be stopped. In all reality the play is a man coverage beater. Meaning if you are running zone coverage it isn't really hard to stop especially in a cover 2. The motion is a dead give away so if the defender is trailing the #3 receiver it is man and you look to hit that flat route...if no one shifts and it is a zone then you look towards the quick slants.

 

This is HUGE in all levels of football, just a fixture in any offensive system. But there is subtlness to this play and how it is taught.....for example the team I coached this year modified to a straight screen play so receivers stalked blocked the defenders waiting for them to come up to make contact so it was legal. Some teams teach receivers to attack the defender right now and one bad snap or something and timing is off so its OPI now. On the flip side DBs that take poor angles and go around instead of running downhill open themselves up to that play. If it is man coverage it is tough, but in zone you have to see it and jump it like in the SB.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

We run like one pick play every month and it's only on the goal line. Lmao. The Packers scheme is based on iso routes which does very little crossing or intersecting routes. There are exceptions of course... But I wish we would run these more... It would kill man coverage which has been stifling us.

[AL_Royalty 489]

First off, shame on you Oochy. Getting into role/ref argument with Bware? You clearly know better. All sports should be officiated by non-gender specific robots with no emotion and infallible judgement, because robots are great with the "spirit of the rule." Bware.

 

Anyway, teams should do everything they can to win. If it ain't being called, it ain't a penalty. Not doing things that are allowed in the quest of victory would be like a pitcher giving back called strikes because they're a little bit off the plate. Pick 'em if ya got'em.